Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

POOR RELIEF

Return ordered,
showing the number of persons in receipt of Poor Relief in England and Wales on the night of the 1st day of May, 1946 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 135 of Session 1938–39)."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES

Hydro-electric Development, Wales

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps are being taken to investigate the possibilities of increased electricity from the water supply of the Welsh hills; who are the members of the committee concerned; and when he proposes to issue a report.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): As a result of a full investigation by consulting engineers, several schemes have been put forward by the North Wales Power Company for hydroelectric development in the Welsh Hills. These schemes are being examined by the Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board. In these circumstances I see no need to appoint a committee.

Mr. Freeman: In view of the fact that any schemes of this description would bring great relief to the coal industry without interfering with the domestic supplies of water, would my right hon. Friend give them every priority?

Mr. Shinwell: I would not like to say that I can give them every priority, but they are under consideration.

Statutory Obligations (Suspension)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether it is intended to introduce a Bill of Indemnity to excuse electricity undertakings from penalties for suspending, at the request of the Government, the performance of their statutory obligations.

Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir.

Mr. Keeling: Would the Minister say whether the Government propose to give any protection to electricity authorities which open themselves to proceedings by cutting off electricity without any statutory authority?

Mr. Shinwell: As far as I know, they have not asked for it.

Oil Fuel Conversion

Mr. Hobson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of chain grate fired boilers and the number of pulverised fuel fired boilers in selected and non-selected power stations that have been converted to oil fuel.

Mr. Shinwell: None, Sir.

Mr. Hobson: In view of the small amount of progress made in the conversion of water type boilers to oil fuel would the Minister reconsider his decision, which is against the advice of the Central Electricity Board and is taking labour away from the production of new boilers and boilers in course of erection which are urgently required and is saddling the electricity generating industry with heavy additional running costs?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware that this is against the advice of the Central Electricity Board. On the contrary, we have been in close consultation with them about it. These matters have been dealt with by the Heavy Electrical Plant Committee of the Ministry of Supply, and I think we are going along the right lines.

Mr. Hobson: Is the Minister aware that at the present moment 18 boilers which are out of commission while this conversion is taking place are urgently needed to prevent the shedding of the load?

Mr. Shinwell: That is the first I have heard of it, but perhaps the hon. Member will give me the details.

New Turbo-generators

Mr. Hobson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the number of turbo-generators in the course of erection in selected and non-selected power stations in England and Wales; arid their total kilowatt capacity.

Mr. Shinwell: Twenty-four turbo-generators, totalling 709,000 kilowatts of installed capacity are now in course of erection in selected and non-selected stations in England and Wales.

Copartnership Schemes

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) if he is aware that Central London Electricity, Limited, have issued a notice to their employees stating that because of the Electricity Bill, on the advice of his Department, the directors have with reluctance been compelled to abandon their intention to reinstate the employees' copartnership scheme; why such advice was given; and what were the dates of the letters exchanged between his Department and Central London Electricity, Limited, on the matter;
(2) if he will give an assurance that company electricity undertakings governed by the provisions of the London Electricity Acts, 1925, are not debarred from making copartnership, bonus or special payments to their officers and workpeople for the current year if they so wish;
(3) if he will give an assurance that it is not intended by the legislation now before the House providing for the establishment of a British Electricity Authority and Area Boards to make illegal normal copartnership, bonus or special payments to officers and workpeople made before vesting date.

Mr. Shinwell: I am aware of the notice issued by Central London Electricity, Limited, which has now been withdrawn. It was not issued on the advice of my Department and no letters were exchanged. The Electricity Bill now before Parliament does not in any way affect rights which have been created by copartnership arrangements made in accordance with the London Electricity (No. 2) Act, 1925.

Mr. Palmer: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be wiser if directors of electricity undertakings were to take the trouble of ascertaining the facts before making alarming statements of this kind?

Mr. Shinwell: No doubt it would.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Additional Food (Absentees)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the special foods, etc., which are now made available to miners, are still allocated to a miner who voluntary absents himself from duty during the course of any week.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister asking the House to believe that a miner who works four days a week is entitled to more food than a man in another heavy industry working 5½ days a week?

Mr. Shinwell: It is very difficult to discriminate. This has been provided for miners in general. It is quite impossible to make exceptions.

Mr. Thomas Brown: Is the Minister aware that Members of Parliament get the same food on Saturday and Sunday when they are not working as they do on any other day of the week?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can we ask that the Opposition should at least use the King's English in phrasing their Questions henceforward?

Electricity Undertakings (Coal Ash)

Major Peter Roberts: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the average increase during the period 1939–46 in ash content of coal supplied to electricity undertakings in the main areas of Great Britain.

Mr. Shinwell: I am advised by the Central Electricity Board that the average ash content of coal as received at generating stations under their control was 10.3 per cent in 1939 as compared with 13.3 per cent. in 1945. A figure for 1946 is not yet available.

Major Roberts: Is the Minister aware that under the National Coal Board the dirt figures are definitely increasing, and


will he see to it because, although it may look nice in our output figures, it does not help industry?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not agree at all that the dirt content is increasing under the National Coal Board. It was very bad under private enterprise during the last few years.

Major Roberts: The Minister does not seem to be able to look forward; he always looks backwards.

Mr. Shinwell: I could, of course, give an answer to that.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if his attention has been called to the Nineteenth Annual Report of the Central Electricity Board in which reference is made to the increasing ash content of the coal supplied, resulting in a financial burden of £2,000,000 and loss of 380,000 kilowatts; and what steps he is taking to remedy this matter.

Mr. Stanley Prescott: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been directed to the Annual Report of the Central Electricity Board and the statement that freight handling charges of inert material in coal, together with subsequent ash handling charges, resulted in an annual financial burden on the supply industry and consumers of over £2,000,000 and a loss in output capacity arising from the use of inferior coal of 380,000 kilowatts; and what steps he is taking to remedy this position.

Mr. Shinwell: I have received the report in question. The National Coal Board inform me that they are giving urgent consideration to the quality of coal marketed both as part of their long-term policy and as part of their shorter term arrangements.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that under free enterprise any manager who sends out bad stock would be dismissed, but under nationalisation there is no discipline which will prevent the consumers being exploited?

Mr. Shinwell: I should not care to enter into a discussion on the merits of private enterprise.

Sir W. Smithers: There is no answer.

Mr. Prescott: Is it not a scandal that the public should have this inefficiency put on them?

Mr. Shinwell: This so-called inefficiency, if it is inefficiency at all, is a spill-over from private enterprise.

Mr. Hobson: Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing the electricity undertakings to buy coal according to its calorific value, as they did before, because it would prevent this gross wastage?

Mr. Shinwell: Shortly I shall set up an industrial consumers' council, as provided for in the Act of Parliament, and they can deal with these matters.

South African Offer

Major Roberts: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why an offer of coal made by the South African Government to this country during the last 12 months was not accepted.

Mr. Shinwell: Apart from a proposal to exchange South African coal for United Kingdom cement made last December, which on investigation was then found to be impracticable, I am not aware that any offer of coal from South Africa has been rejected.

Major Roberts: Is the Minister aware that an offer was made? Is he further aware that it was made not so much on the question of cement as on the question of wagons, and are we to assume from his reply that the matter is still under consideration?

Mr. Shinwell: Certainly not.

Colliery Consumption

Mr. W. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the percentage of total output which is consumed by coalmines; and what steps are being taken to reduce this consumption.

Mr. Shinwell: Six per cent. of the output of coal mines is consumed by the collieries. The National Coal Board inform me that it is their intention to intensify and extend the work done hitherto to improve the efficiency of utilisation of coal at collieries.

Durham (Employment)

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of persons now employed at each pit sunk and each


drift driven in the county of Durham covering the last 25 years, in accordance with his letter to the hon. Member for Spennymoor, dated 18th April, 1947; the number of pits closed in the county of Durham over the same period; and the total number of persons affected.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sending my hon. Friend a list showing the number of wage earners now on the books of each of the 17 coalmines in the county of Durham which have started operations during the last 25 years. During the same period operations ceased at 41 mines in the county. At each of these mines 100 or more wage earners were employed in 1921. At that date the total number of wage earners so employed was 18,798.

Mr. Murray: Is the Minister aware that the information given on the last occasion was rather conflicting, that in one case I know 700 to 800 men were thrown out of work and, where a drift has been started, only 150 men have been reinstated who had lost their jobs?

Mr. Shinwell: I hope the reply I have given will clarify the position.

Underground Gasification

Mr. Scollan: asked the Minister at Fuel and Power if he will consider experimenting on gasification of coal seams that have been abandoned as unprofitable for mining.

Mr. Shinwell: The desirability of gasifying abandoned coal seams has been considered by an inter-Departmental working group which was appointed to advise on the general question of developing underground gasification in this country. The report of this group is at present under consideration, and I hope to announce a decision shortly. It is also hoped that representatives of the Fuel Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the National Coal Board will have an opportunity of observing experiments in underground gasification which are expected to take place shortly in Belgium.

Mr. Scollan: Is there any chance of these experiments being held up for lack of finance, because if we expend finance on this, there must be available in the country in the abandoned coal seams, millions and millions of tons of coal which could be utilised to the advantage of industry?

Mr. Shinwell: Of course there are financial considerations which are not lightly to be ignored. because experiments of this kind are likely to be expensive, but there are also very serious practical considerations.

Mr. Scollan: Is not the reward well worth spending the money?

Mr. Shinwell: We cannot decide whether it is going to be worth doing it until it has been investigated.

Coal Board Staff

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the total number of the staff employed at the London headquarters of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Shinwell: Staffing is a matter of management for which the National Coal Board are responsible. In view, however, of the recent statement in the Press that the headquarters staff of the Board had reached the alarming total of 11,000, the Board have asked me to let the House know the truth. The total of the clerical, administrative and professional staff employed in London is about 850, and this includes London staffs formerly engaged in coal industry activities of one kind or another now transferred to the Board, and the transferred staff of the Coal Commission.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister name the newspaper which has made these fantastic misrepresentations?

Mr. Shinwell: I should have thought that was obvious.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the Minister take the opportunity to express—[HON. MEMBERS: "Express' is right."]—to the National Coal Board the deep satisfaction of the House at being allowed to know something of what is happening?

Mr. Shinwell: The trouble with certain hon. Members on the other side of the House is that when the truth is exposed they cannot stand it.

Mr. Marlowe: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman is able to get information from the Coal Board when it is favourable to him, but that he is unable to get it when it is unfavourable?

Mr. Shinwell: Not at all. The hon. and learned Member is quite wrong. But when there is gross misrepresentation it is desirable to state the facts.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any reason to suppose that the newspaper in question, if it had gone to the Coal Board for information before printing its sensational misrepresentations, would have been denied the facts?

Mr. Shinwell: Of course that is a matter for the newspaper in question. If newspapers insist on obtaining information before they make themselves responsible for publication, it may affect their circulation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Arising out of the original answer, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that information as to Coal Board staffs will in future be available, provided it is asked for from his own side of the House?

Mr. Shinwell: Oh, no. I am responsible to the requirements of the House in general; indeed, I must be, but it depends on the merits of the Question that is put to me.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: On a point of Order. The Minister says he will select the sort of Questions he will answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—according to his own choice. Are we not justified, Mr. Speaker, in asking for your protection in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister is responsible for Questions about the Coal Board and if he answers, he answers for a particular reason, I presume. It is not within my power to insist that he shall answer. I cannot interfere with his power.

Mr. Nicholson: Is there not something wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes.'']—after all, the Minister is a servant of the House—that he should be so selective in the sort of Questions he chooses to answer? It is quite understandable if he answers no Questions, or if he answers every Question, but it is not understandable that he should answer only those which are suitable to himself.

Mr. Speaker: It is not in my power to tell the Minister what Questions he should answer; that is not within my province.

Mr. Nicholson: I appeal to you, Sir, as guardian of the rights of Private Members. It is for the Government or the House to decide whether a Minister shall be entitled to answer Questions in regard to a certain body, but it is surely for you to protect us?

Mr. Speaker: It is for the House to say if a Minister is not efficient—[HON. MEMBERS: "We know that."]—it is entirely for the House, and not for me. If the House decide, they can deal with the Minister, but I cannot direct the Minister as to what Questions he should or should not answer, and the Minister is always entitled to refuse to answer.

Brigadier Mackeson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what instructions he has given to the National Coal Board in connection with the number of persons they employ on clerical and administrative duties.

Mr. Shinwell: I have given no instructions to the National Coal Board on the subject referred to.

Brigadier Mackeson: Does the Minister intend to take any steps to limit the numbers involved in view of the great shortage of manpower?

Mr. Shinwell: I gave an answer earlier which corrected some of these gross misrepresentations on the subject of the number of persons employed in the National Coal Board.

Brigadier Mackeson: That was not the question I asked. I asked whether the Minister was taking any steps to avert the danger.

Mr. Shinwell: I do not think there is any danger at all. I must leave these matters to the people on the National Coal Board.

Cotton Mills Allocation

Mr. Prescott: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether deliveries of coal will be able to be made to Lancashire cotton mills to conform with the present allocation of 75 per cent.

Mr. Shinwell: Every effort will be made to ensure that deliveries of coal to Lancashire cotton mills are maintained at the amount allocated to them.

Mr. Prescott: Can the Minister hold out any hope when the allocation might be increased to 100 per cent.?

Mr. Shinwell: I believe a statement will be made on the subject of allocations by my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon.

Mr. Drayson: Will the Minister give the same guarantee in regard to the textile industry in Yorkshire, and will he also assure me that they will not get any less favourable treatment than the cotton industry in Lancashire?

Mr. Shinwell: The Question was about Lancashire and not Yorkshire.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Can the Minister state when it is expected that industry will receive the amount of coal required?

Mr. Shinwell: I have already said that my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement on the subject this afternoon.

Householders' Registration

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is now in a position to allow domestic coal consumers to change their coal retailers, particularly in those cases where hardship can be proved.

Mr. Shinwell: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave on 6th and 13th March to Questions on this subject from the hon. and learned Member for Chester (Mr. Nield) and the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay).

Mr. Chetwynd: Where the consumer can prove that he has been unfairly treated by a merchant, would my right hon. Friend consider allowing him to change his dealer?

Mr. Shinwell: The aggrieved consumer can always apply to the local fuel overseer.

Mr. John McKay: Is the Minister aware that there are about 500 householders in Newcastle who do not use coal, and is there any likelihood of any arrangement being made for them to be able to get heat to the same extent as coal consumers?

Mr. Shinwell: This Question relates to a change of registration. It has nothing to do with heating in general.

Mr. Prescott: There are very many cases where consumers are very badly treated by their merchants. The present procedure is not satisfactory, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider altering it?

Mr. Shinwell: We do receive complaints from consumers about the attitude of coal merchants and we try to deal with those complaints to the best of our ability.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction over this in the city of Birmingham and that in some cases people have been compelled to trade with coal merchants who live five miles away in preference to those living 10o yards away? There seems to be no sensible arrangement in this at all.

Mr. Shinwell: If we are to have registration with coal merchants in order to provide the domestic consumer with coal, obviously some anomalies must emerge, but, as I say, the local fuel overseers are available to enable consumers to have these matters rectified.

Mr. Chetwynd: Why is it that some dealers are able to supply the full allocation while a dealer supplying the person next door is only able to supply something like 5 cwts. less?

Mr. Shinwell: That may depend on the circumstances of the household. If my hon. Friend is aggrieved about these matters, perhaps he might let me have detailed cases.

Trade Union Dues (Collection)

Major Roberts: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the National Coal Board are asking their officials and colliery clerks to do work in the National Coal Board's time with regard to stoppages from men's pay on behalf of the contribution to the funds of the National Union of Mineworkers and, particularly, with regard to payments of the union political levy; and what steps he is taking to see that his political activity by the National Coal Board is stopped.

Mr. Shinwell: Before nationalisation, it was the practice in some areas for trade union dues to be deducted from miners' pay. This was done under agreements entered into by the former owners of the mines. No doubt, the National Coal Board are continuing the practice. I do not think that any question of political activity arises.

Major Roberts: The practice is continuing on a large scale. Is the Minister aware that the Coal Board is called the National Coal Board and that there are a large number of people in this nation who do not like to have anything to do with a Socialist political levy? Will he see either that it is the National Coal Board or else change it to the Socialist Coal Board?

Mr. Shinwell: As I pointed out, this practice was in operation under private ownership. All that we have done is to continue the practice. So far as I know, the miners are not complaining and I do not see why the hon. and gallant Member should.

Major Roberts: The taxpayers of this country are going to pay something like 200 million for these rights, and ought they not to have some say in the matter?

Mr. Shinwell: The mineworkers are the only persons concerned in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The contributions are deducted from their pay and obviously they are the persons concerned. Ought it not to be left to them to state a grievance if they have one?

Mr. George Wallace: Is the Minister aware that the taxpayer will benefit from contented miners?

Mr. William Foster: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that in these cases where trade union contributions are deducted through the colliery office, the miners themselves pay a percentage out of the contributions for the services rendered?

Major Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the people who are objecting are the clerks of the National Coal Board who do not like to have to do this work?

Mr. Shinwell: If the clerks have a complaint to make, they have a recognised trade union, and perhaps they would prefer to make their complaints through that union rather than through the hon. and gallant Member.

Disabled Ex-Miners

Mr. W. Foster: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will discuss with the National Coal Board the employment in the mining industry of unemployed exminers suffering from some slight physical disability, but fit and capable of performing useful work underground or on the surface, submitted by respective local employment exchanges for notified vacancies.

Mr. Shinwell: I am informed by the National Coal Board that every consideration will be given to cases of disabled exminers who apply for employment, and an effort made to find work for them of a character suitable to their conditions.

Mr. Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are thousands of ex-

miners suffering from slight disability who are signing on at the employment exchange and who, in some cases, have been submitted to the local collieries for employment and have been rejected on medical grounds?

Mr. Shinwell: There is considerable difficulty about this matter because, in the main, these persons are suitable only for work on the surface and, as we are not in need of more workpeople for surface work, it is not easy to re-employ them. The matter is under review and we are doing the best we can.

Mr. Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these ex-miners who received their injuries at the collieries are unable to obtain employment in other industries because of their injuries and that work underground or on the surface is their only access to employment?

Mr. Shinwell: I am well aware of that, and I am fully in accord with my hon. Friend in trying to secure employment for these men. I understand that the National Coal Board are doing their best to absorb them.

Standards of Quality

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will issue directions to the National Coal Board that, in all cases where non-combustible substances of mineral origin are supplied by that Board to coal merchants and by coal merchants to domestic consumers, such material shall be replaced by coal without further payment and without counting against fuel allocations.

Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir. Replacement on the lines suggested by the hon. Member would be impracticable, but the National Coal Board are giving close attention to the improvement in standards of quality.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what possible justification there can be for selling as coal pieces of stone such as has been sold to my constituents?

Mr. Shinwell: It is not a question of justification; it is because of physical difficulties which for the moment are insurmountable. If private ownership found there were great difficulties before the transfer of the pits to national ownership, those difficulties still obtain, but the National Coal Board is doing its best.

Mr. Jennings: Is there any chance of poor persons getting their money back after they have bought stones?

"Coal"

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the object with which the publication "Coal" is being produced by the National Coal Board; and what is the anticipated circulation.

Mr. Shinwell: I understand that the general object is to provide miners all over the country with a specialised organ of information which will enable them to keep abreast of developments in their industry under national ownership, and will also make such information available to the general public. I am informed that the circulation will be 100,000 copies.

Mr. Wilson Harris: What is the relevance, in a journal devoted to coal, of an article on a gentleman called Wragg, who seems to have something to do with horses?

Mr. Shinwell: I believe that there are even very refined cultural and intellectual organs that sometimes descend into the depths.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSUMER FUEL RESTRICTIONS

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the names of the women's organisations with whom he has now had discussions on the subject of domestic fuel cuts.

Mr. Shinwell: Discussions with women's organisations took place at a meeting in my Department at which 17 organisations were represented. As the list is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Invitations are being issued to a much larger number of organisations to attend a meeting next week.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman state in what capacity Miss Mary Sutherland, the chief woman officer of the Labour Party, was present, and whether similar invitations were issued to this lady's opposite numbers in the Conservative and Liberal Parties?

Mr. Shinwell: I imagine that Miss Mary Sutherland would represent the Women's Co-operative Guild.

Mrs. Leah Manning: No.

Mr. Shinwell: She was present in consequence of her membership of the Standing Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations. As regards the other organisations, while I say nothing about them, I have no doubt that they have all got their political views.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the list excludes the Tory controlled British Housewives League?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: is the Minister aware that the organisation to which he referred—the Standing Joint Committee—consists only of representatives of the "Co-op.", the trade unions and the Labour Party?

Mr. Shinwell: I am well aware of that. Why should they not be permitted to represent them?

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that the female of the species is more deadly than the male?

Mr. Shinwell: If it is any satisfaction or consolation to the hon. Member, I can tell him that among the organisations which advised us was the Good- Housekeeping Institute.

Sir W. Smithers: They are still more deadly.

The following is the list:

Association of Teachers of Domestic Subjects.
Church Army Women's Section.
Citizens' Advice Bureaux.
Electrical Association for Women.
Good Housekeeping Institute.
National Council of Women.
National Federation of Women's Institutions.
National Union of Townswomen's Guilds.
National Union of Women Teachers.
Scottish Women's Rural Institutes.
Standing Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations.
Women's Advisory Committee on Solid Fuel.
Women's Advisory Housing Council.
Women's Co-operative Guild.
Women's Gas Council.
Women's Group on Public Welfare.
Women's Voluntary Services.

(A number of other organisations were invited but did not send representatives to the meeting.)

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL PUMPS (TRADE MARK SIGNS)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether it is by understanding with the Petroleum Board that petrol stations are removing pool petrol signs and replacing former trade-mark signs, such as B.P., etc.

Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir, there is no such understanding. Dealers should continue to affix "Pool" labels on petrol pumps in use, as hitherto. The labels are however of paper, and liable to come off in wet weather.

Mr. Piratin: Has not the Minister received such information from some of the workers employed at these stations, and has he not looked into the matter?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of any such information being conveyed to me, but I will look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMER FUEL RESTRICTIONS

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the names of the organisations and authorities consulted in Scotland prior to deciding that space-heating would not be permitted in industrial and commercial establishments during May to October, inclusive; and if he is aware that climatic conditions in Scotland are all against maximum production unless space-heating is permitted in October and that this was admitted during war years when, notwithstanding the full restrictions, space-heating was allowed in Scotland as from the end of September.

Mr. Shinwell: As I explained in the statement which I made to the House on 24th April, we consulted representatives of the two sides of industry through the National Production Advisory Council on Industry, the membership of which includes the Chairman of all the Regional Boards for Industry. The employers' and workpeople's organisations concerned, namely, the British Employers' Confederation, the Federation of British Industries and the Trades Union Congress, are also representative of the country as a whole, including Scotland. I am well aware that parts of Scotland, and indeed of England and Wales, are liable to exceptionally severe climatic

conditions, and not only during October. The Order makes it possible to deal with such conditions, if they arise, by the issue of licences.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) if he will except householders who have one or more children under the age of four years from the provisions of the Order dealing with the prohibition of the space-heating of residential premises;
(2) if he will except householders who are 70 years of age or older from the provisions of the Order dealing with the prohibition of the space-heating of residential premises and
(3) if he will state the meteorological evidence upon which he justifies the application of the Order prohibiting the space-heating of residential premises in Scotland without modification.

Mr. Shinwell: A statement will be made in the course of the Debate this afternoon, which will cover the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member in these questions.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is the Minister aware that under paragraph 5 of the Order a concession is made in the case of institutions for aged people, and can he not extend that concession to those living in their own homes?

Mr. Shinwell: That is precisely one of the questions which will be dealt with in the course of the statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Domestic Work, London

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that many police constables of the Metropolitan Police Force are called upon to scrub floors, clean windows and other forms of domestic work at police stations; and, in view of the important and increasing duties that the police have to perform, if he will take steps to relieve them of such domestic work.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that no constables of the Metropolitan Police


Force are called upon to scrub floors, clean windows or carry out other domestic work at police stations.

Mr. Freeman: Could my right hon. Friend inform the chief constables of all provincial stations accordingly so that all police officers throughout the country shall be relieved of these domestic duties?

Mr. Ede: In answer to a Question some weeks ago, I intimated that it was against my wish that constables should be called on to perform any such duties, and if any hon. Member can give me further information as to cases where this duty is being required, I will look into the matter.

Authorised Establishments

Brigadier Mackeson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an estimate of the establishment of the police forces of Great Britain in 1938 and 1946, and what increase or decrease is anticipated by 1st January, 1949.

Mr. Ede: The authorised establishments of the police forces in England and Wales on 29th September, 1938, and 29th September, 1946, were 61,612 and 63,209 men, and 224 and 1,091 women respectively. I cannot forecast the level at which police establishments will stand on 1st January 1949, but, in view of the burdens falling on the police forces, the aggregate figure is likely to show some further increase.

Brigadier Mackeson: Does the estimate of the future take into account the heavy burden which the Transport Bill will place upon the police, or are the Government going to have snoopers, like the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Ede: I have not given any prophecy as to the size of the forces in the future. All relevant considerations will be taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — LENIN'S STATUE

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of policemen per 24 hours now engaged in guarding Lenin's statue in Holford Square, Finsbury; and why, and for how long, he intends to continue this service.

Mr. Ede: The statue was removed on 18th April and the question of protection no longer arises.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARY COMMISSION

Captain John Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission.

Mr. Ede: The Commission are now actively engaged on their task and their report will be submitted as soon as possible, but it is not yet possible to say when.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRACEPTIVES (SALE)

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the extent of the public sale of contraceptives, with a view to introducing legislation to make such sales to young persons under 18 years of age illegal.

Mr. Ede: Proposals to prohibit the sale of contraceptives to young unmarried persons have been considered in the past but have been found impracticable, largely because of the difficulty of enforcement.

Mr. Allighan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people of both sexes of the ages of 16 or 17 can go into chemists' shops and buy these contraceptives, and why is it not possible to adopt the same kind of restrictions on this kind of sale as is adopted in the case of young people going into public houses to buy liquor?

Mr. Ede: I think the answer is that substances bought in public houses in a form ready for immediate consumption cannot be taken away and handed over to another person, whereas there is no such difficulty with these particular articles.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALISED UNDER TAKINGS' STAFFS (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES)

Mr. Charles Smith: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether any guidance has now been given by the Government to nationalised undertakings with regard to the political freedom of their staffs; and, in particular, to the right


of their staff to hold office in a political party;
(2) what restrictions are imposed on the staff of nationalised undertakings with regard to standing for election to local authorities or to Parliament; and whether any guidance has been given by the Government on this matter to nationalised undertakings.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The Government have informed the boards of the general principles which in their view should govern the development of a code of practice in this matter. The broad effect of these is that the vast majority of those employed in our nationalised industries will be as free as those employed in other industries to participate without restriction in political activities, whether national or local. There is, however, one qualification affecting only a small number of employees which does not always apply in other industries. It is desirable that the senior staffs of the boards should establish a tradition of public service irrespective of party allegiances, and it follows that they must exercise a measure of discretion in political matters which will prevent them from engaging in the more controversial forms of political activity.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of that statement, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will undertake that in all nationalised industries the policy of the closed shop shall be done away with?

The Prime Minister: That has nothing whatever to do with this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRONIC CALCULATOR

Mr. John Foster: asked the Lord President of the Council, whether, in view of the intricate calculations involved in modern planning and the difficulties of evaluating all the relevant factors, any giant electronic calculating machines are being constructed for use in Great Britain similar to the Mark I operating at Harvard University in the U.S.A. or the Mark II which is under construction for the U.S. Navy.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The two machines referred to are, in fact, not electronic, but are operated by relays, and no similar calculator is contemplated for this coun-

try. An electronic calculator, which will operate at one thousand times the speed of these machines, is being planned now at the National Physical Laboratory. When completed, its services will be available to Government Departments, research establishments and industry for calculations to which it may suitably be applied.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Building Trainees

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Labour how many building ex-Service trainees are still receiving instruction, and how many are waiting to enter centres.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): On 8th April last, 20,702 ex-Servicemen were receiving training in the building trades, and 12,399 had been accepted and were awaiting allocation to training.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Can the Minister say when these 12,000-odd are likely to be accepted, and whether the position is improving, compared with what it was 12 months ago?

Mr. Isaacs: The training has to be phased with the opportunity for employment when the training is completed. We are in consultation with the industry, and so can phase it up or down, as the industry may demand, at the time that the training ceases.

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Labour how many building ex-Service trainees were registered as unemployed at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Isaacs: This information is not readily available, and its extraction would involve a disproportionate expenditure of time, which would not be justified.

Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the serious situation in the building industry, will the Minister make an effort to get this information, because it is important that the House should have it?

Mr. Isaacs: We could get the information, but it would mean searching the records of every individual ex-Serviceman who has been undergoing training, finding out where he has gone to work and whether he has left one job to go to another, and where he is now. Anything can be done by the Ministry of Labour,


but this would take such a long time, and would involve so much labour, that we. do not think it would be practicable.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Without going to all that trouble, will the Minister say whether he or his Department has any idea of what the position is?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. We have no idea without making this exhaustive search.

Prisoners of War (Civilian Status)

Mr. Douglas Jay: asked the Minister of Labour if arrangements are now in force for farmers to apply to county A.E.Cs. for German prisoners of war to remain in employment here with civilian status where they are willing to do so; and whether prisoners have been informed of this.

Mr. Isaacs: I hope to bring the arrangements into force very shortly, when they will be communicated to all concerned.

Mr. Jay: In view of the Minister's statement that anything can be done by the Ministry of Labour, with which I agree, does he not think that there is a case for extending this sensible arrangement to other essential industries, such as brickworks?

Mr. Isaacs: I would not like to express an opinion apart from the actual industry with which we are dealing at the moment, but the possibility of extension is not ruled out.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Would the Minister say what arrangements are made for paying these people if they are allowed to stay, and whether they will still be restricted?

Mr. Isaacs: If these people stay on as civilians, they will be employed at trade union rates, and will, I hope, take advantage of the opportunity to become trade union members.

Mr. Robens: Will there be any provision in the scheme for allowing the wives and families of those who remain to join them subsequently?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not know whether that is one of the provisions in the scheme, but I can say quite definitely that we are most anxious, where a family has been parted


for many years by the cruelty of the enemy, to give them the opportunity to be reunited here. If we can, we shall certainly do that.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will the Minister bear in mind the undesirability of the prisoners hearing of these arrangements by rumour, through the B.B.C. and the Press, rather than through the official announcements made to them by their commanding officers, which should be prompt and should be made before they hear this information in these other ways?

Mr. Isaacs: The information must be complete before we can communicate it to them.

Mr. Frank Byers: Will the Minister have a word with the Home Secretary who, at the present time, is separating mothers and children coming from Austria?

Mr. Isaacs: Not in this connection. I stand by my answer that if we can reunite families by bringing them here to work. we shall do so.

Mr. David Renton: Will the Minister ensure that, once the scheme comes into operation, if a man makes application to stay, he will not be sent back to Germany, and thus create the difficulty in bringing him back to this country which was experienced in the case of the Italians?

Mr. Isaacs: It must be borne in mind that it is not a matter of application by the man concerned, but whether the farmer or the employer can guarantee him employment, and can find him suitable accommodation. It is not the need of the prisoner, but the need of the employer which is the deciding factor.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE CALL-UP

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Labour how many military Service personnel were dealt with by his Department for the first three months of 1947; and what were the comparable figures for the first three months of 1940 and 1941.

Mr. Isaacs: The number called up in the first three months of 1947 was 51,000. The corresponding figures for 1940 and 1941 were 180,000 and 195,000.

Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister say whether, in view of the figures he has


given, he is taking steps to reduce the staff of his Ministry, which appears to be unduly large?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. The staffs engaged on this work have been reduced, but, of course, they have been absorbed by being transferred to other Departments, where men have stayed on after reaching the retiring age.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Imported Gifts (Purchase Tax)

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in addition to Customs Duty, Purchase Tax is levied on the contents of parcels arriving in the United Kingdom as unsolicited gifts to the addressees from friends and relatives resident in other countries, having regard to the fact that the articles on which the tax is levied have not been purchased in the United Kingdom by the recipients; and whether he is aware that this demand is causing great dissatisfaction, both to the senders of these gifts and to those receiving them.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Purchase Tax is levied because the law so requires. As I have often explained, a general exemption from Purchase Tax for imported gifts would be open to grave abuse, and would be unfair as between individuals.

Postwar Credits (Deceased Persons)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if postwar credits will be paid to dependants of deceased persons who were 65 years of age or over at the time of their death.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir, except where the beneficiaries are themselves over the age of 65, if men, and 60, if women

Mr. Lipson: Is it quite fair for the Treasury to take advantage of the fact that these persons have died, because, had they been alive, they would have had it, and their dependants would have benefited?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It was made quite clear by my right hon. Friend when this concession was made, and when this section of the community came before the House, that it was being made in order

to give old people a chance to enjoy the money before they died.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Should it not be regarded as part of the estate of the deceased persons who may wish to pass it on to someone dependent on them?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is so regarded; it goes into the estate of the person who dies, and is passed on to the beneficiary.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Is not the Financial Secretary wrong in the short statement he has made, and is not the position that, if the right has accrued before death, it passes to the beneficiary under the will?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The position is that, although the right might have accrued, unless the money has actually been paid over before death, it falls to whomsoever benefits under the will, and will go to that person as and when that person is reached at the time of the general distribution of postwar credits.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the fact that there is not a great deal of money involved, will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again?

Mr. S. Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people will agree with him in the attitude he has taken up, and would regard it as highly inequitable that people of 20 or 30 years of age should enjoy spending postwar credits when people of 50and 60 years of age cannot do so?

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: If the dependant is over 65 years of age—

Mr. Speaker: I think that we have discussed this matter long enough.

Sterling Balances

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the agreements for the convertibility of sterling now signed by His Majesty's Government had the prior agreement of all other members of the sterling area.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether other members of the sterling area are satisfied with the terms of this agreement?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Does it matter in this case? I am answering the Question on


the Order Paper, and I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has two other Questions down. It is for us, whose currency it is, to decide, and not for another country to interfere.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what arrangements have been made by His Majesty's Government for the convertibility of current balances of sterling acquired after 15th July, 1947, by countries outside the sterling area, other than those with whom His Majesty's Government has signed financial agreements;
(2) if he will state the arrangements made by His Majesty's Government with countries, other than those with whom a funding agreement has been already made, for the convertibility of sterling balances acquired by the countries concerned before 15th July, 1947.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It would not be desirable for me to go into details regarding the future arrangements now under discussion, or negotiation with various countries. My right hon. Friend is not yet able to make any additions to the list already given in his answer to the hon. and gallant Member on 24th April.

Civil Servants, Armed Forces (Pay)

Brigadier Low: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent civil servants and Government employees are being paid part or all of their salaries or wages whilst they are serving in the Armed Forces under the National Service Acts; how many are being so paid; what was the total cost of this during 1946–47; and what is the estimated cost for 1947–48.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As a wartime arrangement, established civil servants and un-established staffs, both industrial and non-industrial, with the necessary qualifying service, called up for service with H.M. Forces or allowed to serve therein on temporary arrangements, whose civil pay exceeds their service emoluments, are eligible to receive the balance of their civil pay to bring up their total emoluments, Service and civil, to the level of their civil pay. The question of terminating this arrangement is under consideration. Whilst no detailed record is held centrally, it is estimated that about 16,000 non-

industrial civil servants were receiving balance of civil pay at 1st January, 1947. No information is readily available in the case of industrial staff. The total cost involved in 1946–47 was of the order of £2 million, whilst the corresponding cost for 1947–48 is estimated at approximately £400,000.

Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a further statement about the future when he has considered this matter?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any regulation governing this practice, or whether it is simply an arrangement?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is an arrangement of some long standing and, without notice, I could not commit myself to whether it is an arrangement within the Treasury or whether there is some Act of Parliament which deals with it. I will ascertain and communicate with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — ESPIONAGE COMMISSION, CANADA (REPORT)

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary to the Treasury if, in view of the demand for copies of the report of the Canadian Royal Commission on the Gouzenko case and the cost of purchasing copies, he will arrange for abridged copies of this report, provided that the consent of the Canadian Government be obtained, to be printed here and placed on sale to the public.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. I would add that additional copies are now on the way from Canada, and should be available shortly.

Earl Winterton: In view of the great interest taken in this matter, and the fact that it involves a plot against a sister State of the Empire, in which a Member of Parliament of that country and members of the Soviet Embassy, one of whom is in this country, are concerned, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the widest possible circulation is given to this document, especially as there was nearly a similar case in this country in the case of Mr. Trebistch Lincoln, M.P.?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are, of course, anxious to meet the demand for copies of


this book, but the Question asked whether the Government would issue an abridged edition. It is our view that it would be very difficult for the Government to issue a "potted" version of a publication issued by another Government. It is more for a private firm to undertake.

Earl Winterton: Do I understand that there is to be a further distribution of copies of this highly important State document?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir.

Brigadier Low: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when the further distribution is likely to take place?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We have ordered over 1,000 further copies. Seven hundred of them are now on the way. I do not like to commit the Stationery Office to an exact date, but it is our hope that they will be on sale and available within a fortnight.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Barnstaple

Brigadier Peto: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider making an increase in the present allocation of 65 permanent houses for the current year in the Barnstaple rural district, an area of 130,000 acres with a population of 21,500, about 600 of whom are waiting for houses.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): The programme of new construction in the rural district for the current year was for 144, and not 65, houses. This total represented a fair share of the building resources in the zone as estimated at the time of the zonal conference, and an increase now would only delay the completion of houses by the authority and their neighbours.

Brigadier Peto: Is the Minister aware that the figure of 144 is not in accordance with a letter written to me by the council as a result of the zonal conference?

Mr. Bevan: I am afraid that as there is a conflict of fact, the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I had better have another meeting about it.

Repair Notices, Manchester

Mr. W. D. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health in how many cases has

statutory notice to carry out essential repairs been served by the local authority on house-property-owning landlords in the city of Manchester during 1946 and the three months of 1947 ended 31st March; in how many cases has the notice been complied with; and in how many cases of non-compliance have legal proceedings been instituted.

Mr. Bevan: The answers to the first two parts of the Question are, as I am informed, 8,064 and 5,618 respectively; legal proceedings were instituted in 177 cases; in the majority of the remaining cases of non-compliance warning letters were effective.

Building Licences

Mr. George Wallace: asked the Minister of Health if local authorities have power to issue licences for new buildings before plans have been submitted to and approved by the appropriate interim development authority.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. But this does not absolve the applicant from the necessity of seeking and obtaining planning consent.

Mr. Wallace: Surely my right hon. Friend must be aware that it is impossible to assess the value of a house unless the plans are settled? How can a local authority grant a licence until all details about the development of the property have been settled?

Mr. Bevan: I quite agree, and that is the reason why I should have thought it was necessary to get the consent of the planning authority first.

Birmingham

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is satisfied that the allocation of building materials as between materials required for building new houses and materials required for repair work in Birmingham give a sufficient quantity to repair work, in view of the large number of houses requiring repair in that city;
(2) whether he is aware that much waste of labour results in the inability of builders in Birmingham to obtain a permit for plasterboards for repair work; and if he will allow permits for plasterboards for repair work, in view of the fact that stocks of plasterboards for new houses are accumulating and cannot immediately be used.

Mr. Bevan: Production of many essential building materials, including plasterboard, has been much reduced by the exceptional winter conditions and, although I appreciate the volume of repair work outstanding in Birmingham and elsewhere, it is still necessary to conserve supplies for new houses and other priority work. I am not aware of any surplus of plasterboard over and above current requirements.

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Health what is the number of houses in Birmingham at present requiring repair.

Mr. Bevan: I regret that the information is not available.

Mr. Wyatt: Could my right hon. Friend take steps to obtain the information? I believe there is an exceptionally large number of houses requiring repair in various parts of the country.

Mr. Bevan: It would be very difficult indeed to define what is meant by "house" and what is meant by "repair." It would depend upon the standard applied to the house. Collecting information of that sort all over the country would involve an enormous amount of investigation.

1947 Programme

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to state what effect the fuel crisis and the severe frosts and snow have had upon the production of building materials and the progress of the 1947 housing programme; and if he is satisfied that materials will be forthcoming in sufficient quantities this year to fulfil the provisions of the programme.

Mr. Bevan: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on the 1947 programme next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the Report of the Local Government Boundary Commission, he is proposing to submit proposals for amending the Local Government (Boundary Commission) Act, 1945.

Mr. Bevan: The Report of the Commission is largely designed to focus discussion


on certain main issues, and I should not propose legislation on these at this stage. The Commission also recommend one or two amendments of the machinery set up by the Act, and these are being examined.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the report has drawn attention to loopholes in the Act which would make impossible various schemes for the reorganisation of local government which have been advanced by local authorities?

Mr. Bevan: To a large extent, the powers of the Commission are confined to readjustment of boundaries and not of counties. They have, however, called attention to a number of interesting suggestions made by local authorities as to the alteration in structure of local government, and I hope hon. Members and members of local governing bodies will give early and serious consideration to it.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the Commission's recommendation that powers should be extended to enable them to perform their functions, will the Minister reconsider the desirability of introducing the necessary amending legislation recommended?

Mr. Bevan: I would prefer the whole matter to be examined in a kind of national discussion and debate, because it may be necessary to alter the Commission's powers very widely indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DENTISTS (ARMED FORCES)

Mr. Baird: asked the Minister of Health if he will set up a dental priority committee to inquire into the distribution of dentists in the Services on the lines of the Medical Priority Committees.

Mr. Bevan: The object which my hon. Friend has in mind is, in my view, adequately met by the existing arrangements, which provide for consultation with the Service Departments, the dental organisations, and other interested parties.

Mr. Baird: Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the function of the medical priority committees to include dental officers?

Mr. Bevan: I am prepared to consider giving the medical priority committees the function of considering dentists as well as doctors, but, as my hon. Friend is aware, only the newly qualified dentists are, in fact, called up.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House if he can make a statement on the Business for the coming week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir.

Monday, 5th May.—Third Reading of the Transport Bill.

Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, 6th, 7th and 8th May.—Committee stage of the National Service Bill.

Friday, 9th May.—Conclusion of the Report stage and Third Reading of the Statistics of Trade Bill.

During the week we shall ask the House to take the Committee and Report stages of a new Financial Resolution which is required for the Town and Country Planning Bill.

Mr. Churchill: Under the Guillotine Motion of the House the Third Reading of the Transport Bill will be brought to an end at the comparatively early hour of 9.30 p.m. on Monday. As the right hon. Gentleman may be aware, the Committee stage was taken upstairs, thus excluding all but 50 Members of the House from taking any part in it, and large sections of the Bill—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has kept himself informed on this point—were totally undiscussed. The Report stage also failed to deal with a great many of the provisions of this very far-reaching Measure. In view of this, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to prolong the Third Reading Debate until 11 p.m.? If the right hon. Gentleman should be good enough to agree to this, he must not suppose that that by any means satisfies our discontent.

Mr. Morrison: I am broadly familiar with the progress of this Bill through its various stages, and with the attitude which has been adopted by both sides of the House through those stages. This should be a happy day, it being the first time I have dealt with the Business of the House for some months, and I think I ought to try to be well behaved. I

think the right hon. Gentleman's request for Monday is a reasonable one. It would rather curtail the Third Reading Debate if it came to an end at 9.30 p.m., and the Government are agreeable to meeting the right hon. Gentleman's request by suspending the Rule on Monday until 11 o'Clock.

Mr. Churchill: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his additional contribution to the day's rejoicing, in giving us extra time for discussion of this important Measure on Monday night. I did not have any previous opportunity of welcoming the right hon. Gentleman back, though I gave him an informal wave across the Chamber. I should like, if I may, to say that we are all very glad to see that he has recovered from his serious illness. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear." We earnestly hope that the strain of his duties in the House will not be more than he can sustain—speaking in a physical and not in a political sense. Would the right hon. Gentleman let us know what are the Government's views about a Debate on foreign affairs, after the most important mission for which the Foreign Secretary went to Moscow? We understood from an answer to a Question yesterday that the right hon. Gentleman was not unwilling to make a statement at some convenient date. I do not suggest that next week's Business should be disturbed, but would consideration be given to setting aside two days thereafter, and could this matter be discussed through the usual channels? I may say, as far as the Opposition are concerned, we are quite willing to contribute one of our Supply Days towards the general discussion.

Mr. Morrison: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kindly personal references to myself, which I very much appreciate, as indeed I do the kindness that has been extended to me this week by hon. Members in all parts of the House. I am exceedingly grateful. With regard to any discussion on foreign affairs, it is not the case, of course, that every time my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary goes beyond, or returns from an area outside, the three-mile limit there should be a Parliamentary Debate. No doubt my right hon. Friend will—as, indeed, I understand he would wish to—report to the House in a statement. I understand the request of the right hon. Gentleman.


I think the best way to deal with it will be to have it discussed through the usual channels, when we will seek to come to an amicable arrangement. However, I cannot commit myself as to the time or the period.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to give serious consideration to finding time for a Debate on that exceedingly important document the Report of the Gowers Committee on the closing hours of shops, which affects the whole of the population and about two million distributive workers?

Mr. Morrison: I will keep it in mind. I should have thought that perhaps some arrangement might be made for an Adjournment Debate at some time—although, of course, it involves legislation. It would be difficult to set aside a complete day for it, but we will see what we can do on an Adjournment.

Mr. Cocks: As this is to be a happy day, would the right hon. Gentleman consider postponing the Committee stage of the National Service Bill until after the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid we cannot do that. I should like to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend, but I think we had better face our troubles boldly and quickly.

Mrs. Wills: Has my right hon. Friend yet had time to consider the Motion on world federation, put down on 30th January:

[That in order to raise the standard of living of the peoples of the world and to maintain world peace, this House requests His Majesty's Government to, affirm Britain's readiness to federate with any other nations willing to do so on the basis of a federal constitution to be agreed by a representative constituent assembly.]

Could time be given for discussion of that Motion?

Mr. Morrison: To be quite frank, I have not had an opportunity of studying that Motion.

INDUSTRIAL COAL ALLOCATION

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): The Government have carefully considered what supplies of

coal can be allocated to industry over the summer months from 1st June onwards. The full stock-building programme to power stations, gas works and other consumers as already announced will be carried out. While the manpower position in the mining industry has shown improvement since the statement I made during the Debate on the economic situation on 10th March, there is a clear risk in planning allocations to industry at a higher level than I then indicated, in view of the uncertainty which must remain concerning output during the summer. On the other hand, the Government cannot fail to be impressed by the fact that supplies at such a level would not only cause industrial dislocation during the summer, but would also create shortages of materials and components which must seriously prejudice the operation of industry throughout next winter.
Following consultation with both sides of industry, therefore, the Government have decided that supplies of coal to each industry between 1st June and 31st October shall be planned at a level equal to consumption during the summer of last year, subject to appropriate adjustments for factories newly started up, and for oil conversion, etc., In the case of the building materials industries, where there has been an exceptional expansion since last summer, an extra allocation will be made which will cover a proportion of the new production started since last summer. This extra allocation should enable these industries to obtain about 85 per cent. of their current solid fuel requirements. In general, this will mean that supplies to individual firms will be based on the same rate of consumption as last summer. It will be for firms to build up, from the deliveries they receive, a stock sufficient to meet three weeks' winter requirements by the end of October. If larger stocks are accumulated, these will not be taken into account in framing the winter allocations If firms fail to accumulate a three weeks' stock, the winter allocations will, nevertheless, be based on the assumption that such a stock is, in fact, held.
It must be appreciated that in estimating supplies for industry at this level a considerable risk is deliberately being taken, and that the success of this endeavour to avoid the grave results of cutting down industrial activity during the whole of the summer must depend both on


the maintenance of a high rate of output of coal and upon the full co-operation of industrial undertakings in effecting all possible economies and in building up stocks for the winter. If we start next winter with insufficient stocks, we expose ourselves to even greater difficulties than we experienced last winter, and firms must make it their individual responsibility to lay aside for the winter a sufficient stock out of current deliveries.

Mr. Stanley Prescott: I take it that the announcement the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made applies equally to the textile industry in Lancashire? That being so, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman this question? He said that the allocation to industry was to be an amount equal to the consumption of last summer. What estimate has been made for the Lancashire textile industry? Is it a fact that the consumption last summer was considerably less than the 75 per cent. of the present allocation? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the textile industry in Lancashire is finding it impossible to build up any stocks for the winter? Unless some special provision can be made it will be impossible to build three weeks' stocks out of the allocation he has indicated.

Sir S. Cripps: One would not expect people to build up stocks before 1st May. That is the earliest date from which stocks are ever built up. As to the rest of the question, I cannot confirm or otherwise the figures the hon. Member has given, because I have not the exact figures before me now; but my impression is that if the textile industry gets the same quantity of coal as it got last summer, it will get 75 per cent. of what it is getting now.

Mr. M. F. Titterington: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate whether this includes the wool textile industry?

Sir S. Cripps: This statement covers all industries.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: What figure of stocks is it calculated we shall start the winter with, after the allocations, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just referred, have been made?

Sir S. Cripps: I said they would have three weeks' stock at the end of the summer.

Mr. M. Lindsay: On a national basis, as well as in factories?

Sir S. Cripps: On the national basis we gave the figure earlier, 15 million tons. This is allowing industry to use its discretion as to when it accumulates its stock.

Mr. Blackburn: In view of the great importance of allocations to factories, will the Minister indicate that where a firm does not agree with the allocation some form of appeal to the local committee will be allowed by the Minister?

Sir S. Cripps: Anybody can always protest against anything in this country, I think, and bring observations to the attention of the regional boards.

Major Haughton: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain a little further his remark about the making-up trades? I gather that he said that because of the increased output they would get an extra allocation; and then at the end, I think, he said that the allocation would be exactly the same as that in the summer of last year.

Sir S. Cripps: So far as the building material industries are concerned, there will be an extra allocation because of their very exceptional expansion since last summer, and we hope that that extra allocation will enable them to get 85 per cent. of their current requirements.

Mr. Warbey: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, in assessing the allocation to be made, regard has been paid to the needs of those industries which have been called upon to make a larger contribution to our export trade than hitherto?

Sir S. Cripps: The figures are taken on the basis of what was consumed last summer.

Mr. Jennings: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that both sides of industry had been consulted in regard to this scheme. Have they expressed any view that these stocks can be accumulated out of the supplies allocated? Because it is of no use to expect accumulations out of insufficient supplies.

Sir S. Cripps: My impression was that they took the view that it was a good thing to leave it to industry to decide how to get these stocks, giving them a lump sum.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Did I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say there was a special allocation for new factories opened since last year in the development areas and elsewhere? Is there to be a special priority allocation for particularly important industries, such as those of wool and cotton spinning?

Sir S. Cripps: Wool will get the same allocation as last summer, when it had a special allocation. As regards the new factories, where it is necessary, adjustments will be made in order to enable them to work.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We are to debate the subject of fuel today on the Motion for the Adjournment. We are now merely wasting time.

PREROGATIVE OF MERCY

Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I, with your leave, Mr. Speaker, ask, having regard to the doubts, difficulties and ambiguities which have arisen regarding Ministerial responsibility to Parliament in the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy, whether you will expand and develop the Ruling which you were good enough to give the House on 10th March last? On 10th March last, at the beginning of your Ruling, you said that this was a complicated question of Order on which no direct guidance could be obtained from precedents. I hope, in view of that, that I may be allowed for a moment to point out the difficulties I had in mind when you gave your Ruling. In the course of your Ruling you said that the Minister was, of course, responsible to the House at some stage, but not until after he had given his advice; and in answer to a supplementary question you said he became responsible to the House only after a sentence had been, in fact, executed.
This does seem to substitute the right of censure for the right of control. But it would seem to involve other difficulties of a more serious nature, when it is remembered that the Prerogative of mercy applies to all cases, and not only to capital cases. If, therefore, one were to apply your Ruling literally to a case, say, of imprisonment for 20 or 30 years, and the Minister became responsible to the House,

for a failure to advise in such a case, only after that sentence had been executed, it would, of course, render the right of the House of control completely nugatory, because after that time there would be nobody left in the House of Commons with any interest in the matter of any kind. If, in order to get out of that difficulty, one were to say that there was no need to wait until the end of the imprisonment, but that the sentence had, in fact, been executed, why a person, having been handed over to the governor of the prison, with instructions to imprison him for a stated period, we should be in the anomaly that the House would have a greater right to interfere in a minor case than, ex hypothesi, it has in a capital case.
The only other thing I should like to say is, that although there are very obvious dangers and embarrassments in mixing up the Prerogative of mercy with debate in this House, it is clear that such embarrassments and such dangers have to be run at some time; and since it is now clear that the Royal Prerogative of mercy is really only a constitutional fiction, and is no longer exercised by the Crown, but only by a responsible Minister, then it follows that, at some stage, this House must be in a position to exercise effective control. I have said so much only in order to point the difficulties which seem to be involved in rather doubtful and vague statements of the matter, and I think the House would be grateful, Sir, if you could expand the Ruling which you gave previously.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has made a somewhat long statement, and I am afraid that I cannot answer it at such length myself. I would point out that in my Ruling of 10th March I was dealing with the particular case of persons under sentence of death on the Gold Coast. My remarks were, therefore, directed to the question of the Prerogative of mercy in the case of persons under sentence of death. It was the sentence of death that I had in mind when I said, by way of supplement to my Ruling, that the Home Secretary could not be challenged on the advice he had given to His Majesty until after the sentence had been executed. This rule, is, of course, not applicable to sentences of imprisonment. The practice of the House makes a complete distinction between capital sentences and other forms


of punishment, so far as the Prerogative of mercy is concerned. Whereas the remission of a sentence of imprisonment, for example, can be urged upon a Minister at any time after its imposition, a capital sentence cannot be raised in Question or Debate while the sentence is pending. After it has been executed, the Minister responsible may be criticised on the relevant Vote in Supply, or on the Adjournment. I have stated that that is the practice of this House, and I cannot alter the practice of the House, and I do not propose to argue it in any way.

Mr. Silverman: Is it not a little anomalous that this House should have a very much wider power in the smaller case than in the bigger case; is it not also the fact that these Rulings are founded upon very old cases, which antedate the creation of the Court of Criminal Appeal; and, in those circumstances, might it not be advisable that a small Committee of this House should review all these precedents and report to you, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is for me to justify the practice of the House of Commons in this matter. It is enough for me to observe that, for a long period, it has been enforced by my predecessors, with the general concurrence of the House. It seems to me to be founded upon strong reasons of expediency, while maintaining the responsibility of the Minister in the

House. So far as concerns the Committee which, it has been suggested, should be set up, it is entirely a matter for the House.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Would it be proper to submit one other important point affecting this matter? That is, that this House has always claimed the inherent right to discuss any matter which derives its authority from this House, and that a reference back to the history of this Prerogative shows that it is derived from an Act passed by this House in 1535, and that right is expressly given by Section i of the Act of that year dealing with judicial prerogative. May I call attention to that matter, Mr. Speaker, because you will recollect that the Prerogative of mercy was originally an ecclesiastical power which was derived by His Majesty from His Holiness the Pope, and, by that Act, which was passed by this Parliament immediately after the Protestant Reformation, that power was vested in this House? In those circumstances, is it not desirable that, in this extremely difficult matter, a Committee should be appointed?

Mr. Speaker: It is no good hon. Members drawing my attention to this It is for me to obey the practice of the House which has been carried on for a very long time. If hon. Members want the practice of the House changed, they must put down a Motion to get it changed, but it is not within my power.

CONTROL OF FUEL (RESTRICTION OF HEATING) ORDER

3.52 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I beg to move,
That the Control of Fuel (Restriction of Heating) Order, 1947 (S.R. &amp; O., 1947, No. 765), dated 25th April, 1947, a copy of which was presented on 28th April, be annulled.
In rising to move the Prayer standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends, I am bound to confess that, owing to the Rules of Order, I am in some difficulty. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will cast a lenient eye on the early part, at all events, of the remarks which I want to make, because I conceive that this Order, against which we are praying, is a matter affecting every household in the country, and, therefore, it will be of some importance to the public at large, and also to hon. Members of this House, if I deal very briefly with the circumstances in which it arises. I do not intend to enter into details, because it would be out of Order to do so, but to sketch the background against which we have to consider this Order. I am not clear exactly, how the statement which the President of the Board of Trade made earlier today, will affect the necessity for this Order, but, no doubt, there will be an opportunity for discussing that at a later stage.
I suggest that the first question to be put to the Government is this: Is this Order necessary? The second is: Is there any reasonable alternative to it? If it is finally decided that something like a cut of this nature is required, the question arises: Is this the best way to do it, and are there any inherent defects in the Order? So far as the first question—the necessity or otherwise of the Order—is concerned, until today, when we heard what the President had to say, we understood that there was a prospective gap of 10 million tons between the amount of coal available, or expected to be available, this year, and the prospective demand, and it was suggested that 7,500,000 tons out of that 10 million tons could be made up by cuts in industry, 250,000 tons by the railways, and the remaining 2,250,000 tons by the domestic consumer.
All I have to say about that is that I do not think there is anybody who knows anything about the coalmining industry today, including, I believe, Members of the Government, members of the National

Coal Board and most responsible leaders of the miners, who would not be prepared to admit, privately, if not publicly, that it is within the capacity of the existing numbers of miners to produce, not only the 200 million tons required, but to go above it. My opinion is that they could produce 220 million tons, and, probably, even get it up to 235 million tons, if the necessary enthusiasm were inspired and instilled into them. So that it is because the Government has failed to inspire the miners with the necessary enthusiasm that they are now saying that this cut is necessary. So much for the first question, as to whether it is necessary. I believe increased production could be got—[HON. MEMBERS: "It has been got"]—No, it has not been got, because, hitherto, we have been told—we may be told something else today—by the Prime Minister this year that domestic consumers must produce a saving of 2,500,000 tons this year. If hon. Members look at the Prime Minister's speech, they will see that for themselves.
Is there any alternative? Until this statement was made by the President of the Board of Trade today—and I do not profess to understand and appreciate it fully at the present time—industry has been expected to make a cut of 7,500,000 tons. I do not want to discuss that today, because a much wider and better opportunity will be afforded later of discussing whether it is possible for industry to make a bigger cut or not. At all events, there is one obvious alternative, which, again, I do not want to discuss in detail, but merely indicate in passing, by which a saving could be made, and that is miners' coal. The figures are so striking that I think that hon. Members, and, I am quite sure, the public outside, will be interested in them. I do not propose to go into the history of miners' coal beyond indicating these figures. In 1938, 782,000 miners or wage-earners on colliery books drew 88,000 tons of coal per week. In 1946, 697,000 wage-earners on colliery books drew 93,000 tons of coal—a reduction of nearly 100,000.miners and an increase of 5,000 tons of coal per week. Now let us look at what the domestic consumer did by comparison. In 1938, the domestic consumption of coal, including anthracite and boiler fuel, was 887,000 tons—

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): On a point of Order. This is


all very interesting, and I make no complaint about it, but I would like your Ruling, Sir, on whether it is in Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now discussing the question of the amount of solid fuel consumed, whereas the Order before the House, which Members opposite are seeking to annul, relates only to restrictions on the use of gas and electricity. Later, we are to have a Debate of a general character, on the Motion for Adjournment. Is not the right hon. Gentleman now going into general matters?

Mr. Hudson: May I say, Sir, that if this Order is to be justified it must be based on necessity? I am not entering into details, hut I am saying that there is an obvious alternative to this Order, I think that what I was saying comes within the general conception of this Debate.

Mr. Speaker: Provided that the right hon. Gentleman does no more than sketch the background, I think he is in Order. As the Minister said, this Order relates to the limited subject of the supply of electricity and gas and, therefore, the background should not be too extensively filled in.

Major Lloyd George: May I point out, Sir, that in this Order there is an interpretation paragraph which says that "fuel" means coal, paraffin, and so forth?

Mr. Speaker: The Order applies only to restrictions on the use of electricity and gas for domestic purposes.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I respectfully invite your attention, Sir, to the third paragraph of the Order? This, you will observe, refers to "fuel"—which is subsequently defined—and to the use of fuel for heating non-residential premises? I submit that that introduces elements other than gas and electricity.

Mr. Speaker: It does not introduce the production of fuel; only restrictions on the use of fuel.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I appreciate the difficulty we are in, but it remains a fact that the object of this Order is to reduce the consumption of coal, that coal subsequently being translated into gas and electricity. I suggest that there is an alternative by which could be achieved a saving of 2,500,000 tons of coal. I do not

wish to go into details, but I want to give the background of figures, and compare the hardships involved. I want to argue that this Order will inflict great hardship on housewives and people generally in the country, and to indicate how much that hardship could be reduced. I was saying that the domestic consumption of coal had dropped from 880,000 tons a week to 599,000 tons a week, while the consumption of miners' coal, for the same period, rose from 88,000 tons a week to 93,000 tons. It is clear that at present, miners as a whole are getting 5 million tons of coal a year, and that these same miners, if they used no more than the ordinary householder gets, would be using something less than 2 million tons a year. In that way alone, there could be made available for general use more than the 2½ million tons, which this Order is directed to save. I doubt whether the miners realise the situation. We have been reminded by Members opposite, particularly by the Minister of Food, of the Labour slogan, "Fair shares for all." We have been told that whereas before the war certain sections of the population ate a great deal more than others, and others ate less, we are now, more or less, all on the same level. If it is a good thing that there should be fair shares for all in food, I suggest that there should be fair shares for all in coal, so that the necessity for these present cuts would be avoided.

Mr. Tiffany: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in the case of agricultural workers?

Mr. Hudson: That point will be dealt with.

Mr. Beswick: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks that the prewar allocation was sufficient?

Mr. Hudson: I would point out to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Tiffany) that the miners, at present, get approximately four times as much coal as the ordinary householder, and that if he applied that principle to agricultural workers, those workers would get four times as much food as an ordinary person.

Sir Arthur Salter: Should not my right hon. Friend have added one further fact to indicate the scope of this problem? He has shown that if miners got no more than other members of the community, there would


be a saving of about 3 million tons of coal, which would be greater than that effected by the new sacrifices, now being imposed on the whole of the population. Is it not the case that miners and their families number only one-twentieth of the population?

Mr. Hudson: I could develop this point at considerable length, but I do not want to transgress the Rules of Order. Actually, there are 708,000 miners, as compared to a gainfully employed population of 18 million.

Mr. Beswick: rose—

Mr. Hudson: I cannot give way to too many interruptions, because it might induce me to go still further outside the Rules of Order. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt get his chance to speak later in the Debate.
Let me turn to the scheme itself. Broadly speaking, it prohibits space heating, and when the Minister announced it, he said that in addition to the saving due to the prohibition of space heating, he hoped that housewives would succeed in making a voluntary overall saving of 25 per cent. this summer, including the saving to be made from space heating. In our view, the scheme is a good deal better than a rationing scheme, but we take no responsibility for it because it does not follow the advice we have given from this side, namely, that the proper way to deal with this problem is to tell the people of the country the facts, and ask them for a voluntary saving if it is necessary. This Order does not follow that advice. It mixes up compulsory and voluntary saving. Not only that, but I am sure that we shall be glad to learn from the Parliamentary Secretary whether the scheme follows the advice given to him by the industry itself. After all, the people in the industry know most about consumption, and the regulation of consumption, and I take leave to doubt whether they agree that this is the best scheme that could have been devised.
In any case, the scheme will cause very severe hardship. The domestic consumer has already been more severely cut in coal consumption than any other section of the population. I have just given the figures—a reduction from 880,000 tons a week to 599,000 tons. Let the House not forget that the domestic consumer is not

certain of getting, today, the 34 cwt. or 50 cwt. to which he is normally entitled. In the course of the Debate the other day, the President of the Board of Trade took me to task for suggesting that there was to be another cut in domestic fuel. We are having a cut in domestic fuel now. A statement was issued as recently as 26th April by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, warning the people of the country that they were not necessarily to count on getting even their 30 cwt. or 50 cwt., and in addition, a further cut was announced in the supplies of coke. Not everyone uses coke for domestic consumption, but a great number of people eke out their supplies of coal with coke, and, therefore, within two months of making the promise that no cuts in domestic fuel would be made, the President of the Board of Trade and the Government have gone back on their word.

Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Shinwell indicated dissent.

Mr. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he had better read HANSARD for 26th February, column 2190, and see what the President of the Board of Trade said. This is a statement from his own Ministry. Unhappily I have not with me an actual copy of what the Ministry issued

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I can clear that up straight away. There is a difference between the maximum permitted quantity and the actual allocations to different classes of domestic consumers. What we have done is to reduce the maximum which any one consumer may acquire in the form of coke for the year, but we have not touched the allocations.

Mr. Hudson: That seems to be a complicated way of telling the House that people are not going to get as much as they expected. The statement says that up to now no one may have more than 20 cwt., and it goes on to say that a reduction of 5 per cent. in the total is due, etc. Therefore, people instead of getting 20 cwt. are only to be allowed 20 cwt. minus 5 per cent., which is a reduction, whatever the hon. Gentleman likes to say. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot realise that people hitherto allowed 20 cwt. who are next year to be allowed 20 cwt. less 5 per cent. will in fact suffer a reduction.

Mr. Shinwell: They may get the same.

Mr. Hudson: They may get nothing. At all events, it is a reduction of the ration. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is not a ration."] The main point is that we shall all get less. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, we may get more."] To turn back to the Order itself, the people mainly affected by it will be the old people, the bedridden people, families with young children and, more particularly, families living in modern flatlets, and in certain types of "prefabs." The Order refers to space heating. The right hon. Gentleman, when he was speaking about this matter, defined "space heating" in his speech on 24th April, as:
This means that gas and electric fires must not be used during this period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 1253.]
That is his definition of the prohibition of space heating. It was a recognised fact prewar, that the consumption of domestic coal went up, not so much when it was cold weather as when it was wet weather, and a great deal of the consumption of coal in domestic fires was used for drying purposes, rather than for the heating of rooms. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman is going to prohibit by this space heating the use of fires, gas or electric, for drying purposes. In that case he has a different idea of what happens during an English summer from my idea. If he thinks that during the whole of the summer none of us will have wet cloths to dry as a result of being out of doors, I think he is making a singularly bad guess. It is perfectly obvious that the compulsory part of this Order will in fact be widely evaded. Does any hon. Member of this House, or anyone outside it, believe for a moment that when a mother sees her child come home from school, sopping wet, and she has an electric fire before which she can dry that child's clothing, she will not turn it on? Of course she will. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he can bring women like that before the courts, and that if he did, any court in this country would convict? Of course it would not. That is what the prohibition of space heating is worth, when you make it compulsory.
It is our view, on this side of the House, that it would have been far better if the Minister had relied entirely on the voluntary principle, and said to the

people, "If you have to use a fire for a purpose like that, we would ask you to make the saving good by consuming less gas or electricity next day." By making is compulsory in this way, we are asking everyone to evade it, human nature being what it is. We believe that by this the Government will have the worst of both worlds. I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman intends to persevere with this Order, he will make sure that the Minister of Health makes ample provision for additional accommodation in the hospitals, and I would not be surprised if the Home Secretary did not have to make additional accommodation in the prisons, because I am sure both will be needed.
The plea I make this afternoon is on behalf of the British housewife. I should say that she is rather like a pack-horse, so over-burdened that it can hardly struggle along the flat, and now she is being suddenly asked to climb a hill, the summit of which is not in sight. We have heard a lot from hon. Members opposite, about incentives to further production and incentives to further effort. What incentives are there for the housewife today? All that is offered her is more rationing, longer queues, higher prices, and a still further cut in the inadequate warmth which she requires in her home. That is not fair. If I had to sum up our position, I would say that we believe this fuel consumption cut is unnecessary. It is still within the capacity of the present number of coalminers to increase production to a point where this saving in this Order would not be necessary, and if the Government are unable to persuade the miners to make the necessary effort, there is the alternative available of the miners' coal. If the miners consume no more coal than the ordinary household, the coal thus released would be adequate to save this cut. If the Government admit that they are not in a position to do either of these things, and still say that some saving is necessary, then we say that this is a bad way of doing it. We say that this Order is a bad one because it mixes two incompatibles, namely, voluntary and compulsory saving. If the right hon. Gentleman and his friends insist on carrying out this Order, my belief is that before long they will come to the House and say that it has failed and that they have not achieved the saving they require, and they will ask us to agree to some far more drastic scheme


of rationing. If so, the fault will lie not with the people but with the Government. We believe that the Government could have got the saving by a purely voluntary scheme and that they will not get it by a mixture of compulsory and voluntary saving. We think that the Order is a thoroughly bad one, and that is why I move that it be annulled.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I support the Motion which my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Hudson) has just moved. The Debate on a Prayer of this kind must take a very narrow form; I perceive that we are limited to discussing the need for this Order, the effect it will have and whether it is a good Order or whether there is something wrong in the Order which is leading to some discrimination against one section of the public or another. Before turning to the Order, it is well to see what there is on which we can all agree. We all can agree that the economic situation of this country is serious and grim, and will continue to be so for some considerable time. We can all agree that this is, to a large extent, due to the shortage of the quantities of coal available. The stocks of coal have never been so dangerously low as they are at the moment, not only in the yards but also in the wholesalers, in business premises and in industrial premises. We can all agree that it is absolutely essential that stocks should be built up during the summer months, so that we can begin the winter with a reserve of no less than 15 million tons. We dare not face another winter with less than that reserve.
We are all agreed that there must be a greater production in coal. I cannot enter into that question on the Motion which is now before the House, but we are all agreed that there is quite an urgent need for more intense fuel-saving all members of the community. We know that industry and commerce have already made enormous sacrifices and they must continue to do so, as the President of the Board of Trade said this afternoon, even though the cost to the country as a whole and to any particular industry in itself is going to be very heavy. We also know that the domestic consumer, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, has suffered a more severe cut than any other

class in the community. In 1938–39 the domestic consumer consumed some 44 million tons of coal, and in this year that has been cut down to 29 million tons, a cut of 15 million tons on 44 million tons, so that they have already suffered this cut—

Mr. Julius Silverman: That is solid fuel only.

Mr. C. Davies: Fuel as a whole.

Mrs. Leah Manning: It does not include electricity.

Mr. C. Davies: The object of the Order is to prevent the use of electricity and gas for space heating in homes from 5th May to 30th September. Another object is to prevent the use of all fuel of all kinds for space heating in commercial and industrial premises from 5th May to 31st October. In both cases there are exceptions. For example, in the home there may be an exception if a medical certificate is given. In the case of industrial and business premises the use of fuel will be permitted for heating during night shifts from 10 at night until 8 o'clock the next morning. I should like to put this question to the Minister who will be replying: What is the estimated saving? We know what the estimated saving has been in the past, namely 2½ million tons on the whole of this year if it were carried into effect. On the figures of production for the past week which we are glad to see have been raised, the figure of 2½ million tons only represents three days' production, and the housewives are called upon to make this sacrifice in respect of three days saving out of the whole year.
I agree that we must consider every possible form of saving, and it is essential for the national welfare to deal not only with our present position but with our position next winter. It is for that reason that I think paragraph 3 of this Order is right, and that there should be a prohibition on the use of fuel for space heating in all business and industrial premises from 5th May to 31st October. I agree with the exceptions in paragraph 4 (a, b and c). I think those are unavoidable. But it is significant that an exception should also be made under paragraph 4 (d) in respect of night work in all premises whatever be the circumstances, whatever be the temperature, or whatever be the industry.
It is right that we should have attention called to this. I should like to know if this exception is necessary and unavoidable. We know it can be cold at night, and many of us have worked at night not only during the summer months but also during the winter, and during the spring especially we have all suffered. If a sacrifice is to be put on every home, we ought to consider the implications involved in making a special exemption in respect of business premises and of industrial premises which are being used from 10 o'clock at night to 8 o'clock in the morning. One cannot help observing that this distinction has been drawn in cases where there could be organised effective protests, as against a class which, being the most important, is the least organised, namely, the housewives of this country. Those who will be working in industrial premises will be members of a trade union and will be highly organised. They will be able to make their protest effectively. What about the housewives, scattered as they are and not organised for any political or other purpose?
Assuming we strictly adhere only to paragraphs 3 and 4, what will be the saving of coal through increased stocks? Supposing one does grant this exemption in respect of night shifts, what is anticipated to be the amount saved? Then, assuming that one does away with the exemption in respect of nightshifts, one would like to know what would be the amount saved then. Every household will be called upon to make this sacrifice, and if that is so the sacrifice ought to be fair, equitable and just and there should be no discrimination. What one has to point out here is that under this part of the Order the sacrifice is not equitable throughout. There is a discrimination between one household and another because the prohibition is in respect of electricity and gas only. There is no prohibition with regard to the use of coal in the open grate—the most wasteful form of consuming coal that man ever had.

Mrs. Manning: Our allocation will not allow us to do that very much.

Mr. C. Davies: I do not blame the women, and I should like to make that perfectly clear to the hon. Lady. In fact, may I be permitted one digression to say that I think that things would be better if more of the hon. Lady's sex were interested in architecture and built houses in

a manner more suitable for the housewife? Perhaps then we should not have these difficulties. We do realise that the amount of coal allocated to us has been cut down severely but if, perchance, a housewife has the old-fashioned grate she may use it. On the other hand, if she is in a modern flat or one of the new type of premises and has only electricity or gas—which provide, on the whole, a far more economical method either for warming the house, boiling the kettle or whatever it may be—she will be prohibited from using it for space heating. Let us consider what that means. As I have said, one cannot have a more uneconomic use of coal than the open grate, but what will happen? A woman has small babies who have to be bathed in the morning and again at night before they are put to bed.

Mr. Murray: Small babies and a big fireplace.

Mr. C. Davies: Yes, a big fireplace in which she will light a fire which may then last for two or three hours. That will be permitted without the need to obtain a doctor's certificate. Another young woman, very proud of having gone into a modern flat or one of those new houses where there is only electricity and gas, will also want to bath her baby. All she would need to do would be to put on the gas or electricity just a few minutes before she started to strip the child and as soon as the child was again in warm clothing and in its cot she would switch off. But the right hon. Gentleman will forbid her to do that.

Mrs. Manning: Mrs. Manning indicated dissent.

Mr. C. Davies: I notice that the hon. Lady is shaking her head but I maintain that there is not a woman living who would not defy the law in order to protect her child. Nor is there a Government in the land who would dare prosecute her for so doing. But that is beside the point. She will be, in a sense, a criminal.

Mrs. Manning: No.

Mr. C. Davies: She will be contravening this section of the Order by raising the atmosphere of the room to the temperature which she thinks is necessary for her to strip her little child and bathe it. That is the meaning of this Order, and it is the kind of discrimination which is wholly unfair and certainly should not be introduced


in an Order of this kind applying to the country as a whole. May I put one other point? The purpose of this Order is to build up stocks. We are told in speeches by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Fuel and Power and the President of the Board of Trade that what we want to do is to save 2,500,000 tons, so as to build up our stocks for the coming winter. But will that really eventuate from this Order? What will happen will be that power will not be used in the homes—either electricity or gas—but will it not immediately be used by the industries that are drawing upon the grid at that particular moment? It may be a very good thing that industry should have more during the summer months than it otherwise would have, but this will not achieve the object for which this Order has been brought forward—namely, to build up our reserves of coal.
I do not believe that the amount of saving will be very great. The housewife has always been the Chancellor of the Exchequer; thank Heaven she has been, or we men might have ruined ourselves. She has always kept a very close watch on the family income and how it is being spent, and especially is that true within the home. She will not switch on the electric fire or the gas fire unless she feels a grim necessity for it and considers that it is the right thing to do. She will exercise that economy throughout the summer months in any event and will not do anything wasteful. How much, therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman save on the economical housewife? I do not suppose that the saving will amount to a million tons, yet we are to put all these women to this great trouble, inconvenience and annoyance.
Now may I point out two other matters arising from this Order? Where one is drawing electric light or power from a generator which does not consume coal—that is, one which is running on water power—one can use that electricity for heating and lighting and there is nothing to stop one, although there are certain exceptions contained in the First Schedule to the Order. What is to happen in a case such as that of my own constituency? We draw from the North Wales Power Co. I do not know what the position is now because there have been many changes, but during the war the North Wales Power Co. obtained its electricity by the use of hydraulic power. Can we in North Wales

warm our houses freely while those outside the North Wales area cannot, using the electric fire all day long and all night too if we so wish. And this in spite of the fact that the North Wales Power Co. is attached to the general grid so that when it is short itself can draw on England and, when it has a surplus, can pass it on to England. That may be drawing another discrimination which would be quite unfair.
Again, why is Northern Ireland exempt? I realise that they have their own Parliament there but they are dependent on this country for coal. Is it intended to see that Northern Ireland puts upon its housewives the same inconvenience and troubles as the Government are putting upon us here? Finally, I think there has been bad psychology on the part of the Minister and his advisers for this reason. In a speech last month the Minister said that he had not gone in for any long and elaborate educational campaign and that therefore what we wanted was a simple general Order which everybody could understand. He followed that by saying that he intended to appeal to housewives for an overall cut of 25 per cent. on their already reduced supplies, and stated that the Government intended to support this by a full publicity campaign. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. The saving in space heating is included in the 25 per cent.

Mr. C. Davies: I meant to say that the total, including the saving effected by this prohibition, will amount to a saving of 25 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman is telling the housewife that he is prohibiting her from using electricity and gas for space heating, and he is also appealing to her good nature, patriotism and desire to help, to make a further cut.

Mr. Shinwell: No. I have tried to point out that that is incorrect. The further appeal for saving which is of a voluntary nature, will embrace the saving effected on space heating, and is included in the 25 per cent. There is not an additional 25 per cent.

Mr. C. Davies: Including the amount saved by the prohibition, the Minister is still wanting an overall cut of 25 per cent.


He is bringing the criminal law to beat to prohibit space heating by electricity and gas, and he is also appealing to housewives to save more electricity and gas if they possibly can. The housewife will not do it. She will say that the Minister has made a special Order forbidding her using gas and electricity, and that she will do that and no more. What is more, in times of difficulty she will break the Order. It is all very well to say that she can get a medical certificate, but she has not the time to go round to the doctor and ask him to give her a certificate, and in any case, why should she go to the expense of paying for a medical certificate? She does not want to be extravagant, but to get the room warm for her child. If the Minister makes a definite Order, she will adhere to it, but you cannot expect her to do anything else. This is an instance of bad psychology, and I warn the Minister that the scheme will break down. It is a bad Order, and he should think again on it.

4.45 P.m.

Mr. Yates: It is not surprising that those who have spoken this afternoon have not put any real alternative to the Government for consideration.

Mr. C. Davies: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that we would not be allowed to do so? We are strictly limited to what is contained in this Order.

Mr. Yates: I should have thought that if Members felt so strongly that the Order was wrong, there would have been some suggestion of an alternative.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I put forward two alternative suggestions.

Mr. Yates: I know that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned miners' coal.

Mr. Hudson: And output.

Mr. Yates: I will leave that question to those who are more conversant with that aspect. There is no question  ever about the necessity to save fuel. I do not take the view which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) takes of the masses of the people. He seems to have rather a low view of the people, and believes that they will not co-operate. I think he went so far as to suggest that greater provision would have to be made

in prisons. That is an insult to the general masses of the population.
I approach this matter with a certain amount of anxiety, because I represent a constituency which has special problems in this connection. I have toured my constituency asking for opinions. Last weekend I went into many homes to bud out the exact position. The special problem in my constituency is that we have almost 50 per cent. of houses of the back-to-back type. These houses are of the most unhealthy type. In the city of Birmingham no less than 29,182 houses are of the back-to-back type. That is the figure contained in the latest report by the medical officer of health, and those who have had responsibility of government in the past must face up to it. In the Division of Ladywood, which I have the honour to represent, there are 6,019 of these houses. I have consulted these people on this matter, and I find that in all cases there is a desire to do everything possible to co-operate in the saving of fuel.
There is, however, a particular problem. Many of the houses are damp and dilapidated as a result of the recent floods. Many of these houses are almost tumbling down. For instance, I had a most pitiful letter from a constituent whose attic roof had fallen through to the kitchen. These people have been faced with great difficulty in the drying-out process. I have put up to the President of the Board of Trade cases in which beds have been completely destroyed, and drawn his attention to the anxiety which parents feel on matters of this kind. These people have done everything to get alternative forms of heating for drying purposes, but in the main, they are thrown back on coal supplies. I ask the Minister to consider a fairer method of allocating the domestic coal ration. If he can do that, I am certain that this Order will stand a better chance of being successful.
I appreciate that there is nothing in the Order prohibiting the use of fuel for heating hospitals and institutions for the sick and infirm. In this connection I was informed only last Sunday that a fuel dealer in my constituency who has 500 registrations on his books had not been given a supply of coal sufficient to meet medical requirements for the last three months, and that I submit to the Minister is a very serious matter, when people are


being asked to make further sacrifices. They are willing to do so, but they want to feel that they are being given a fair deal in the overall rationing of fuel. I would ask the Minister to give them that, and I would also ask if it is not possible for those dealers who wish to distribute their available supplies fairly to have greater supplies during the summer months and less in winter. In the summer the transport is available. During the recent cold spell we found that people in these back-to-back houses, or in long terraces where the coal merchants have to carry the coal long distances up back alleys, have suffered considerably because the merchants simply refused to deliver. The customers had to go for the coal and wait in long queues.
The Minister will no doubt have a good case in regard to the question of stocking, but if we are to appeal to the people to co-operate in the saving of fuel in this way we ought at the same time to give them some guarantee that they will have a fair allocation of fuel throughout the year. Many of them have not got gas and electric fires. In fact I find that there are 50 houses in my constituency without any gas or electricity at all, and there are 417 in the city of Birmingham without either gas or electricity. The people have to depend upon coal.

Mr. Hobson: On a point of Order. Am I to understand that the Debate on this Order can extend over the whole of the fuel situation? The hon. Member is dealing with the coal situation, to which the Order does not apply.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The position is that the question of coal does not arise, in so far as heating residential premises is concerned, but it does apply to premises which are not residential. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that because there was no electricity or gas, there ought to be coal.

Mr. Yates: I realised that I was going very near the mark, but I want to support this Order to the full because it is absolutely necessary to save fuel. The people are willing to do so; from what I have found in my constituency. I believe that the people will be quite willing to turn off electricity and gas all the time. But I hope the Minister will consider the other point I have mentioned, because it will

be very difficult for them otherwise. If the Minister will look into these questions I am satisfied that the mass of the people will not be so low as to refuse to cooperate in saving. It is simply fantastic to suggest it. Nor do I accept the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who said that this is a bad approach from the psychological angle. I am quite sure) that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power would never be able to make a right approach according to right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

Mr. C. Davies: If the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting, may I say that he and I were in agreement. I was saying that people would co-operate voluntarily, but what the Minister is saying is, "The people will not co-operate and I have got to make an Order."

Mr. Yates: I was taking the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who said that the Minister had made a wrong psychological approach. I do not accept that view at all. I think the approach is right, and so long as these other safeguards are there I am perfectly certain that people in overcrowded areas such as the one to which I have referred will give their full co-operation and will submit to an Order of this nature. It is necessary that we should bring home to the people the urgency of the position. I can well imagine that any scheme proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for rationing or limiting fuel, would be criticised from the Opposition benches, because according to them nothing he does is done from the right psychological point of view.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Quite right.

Mr. Yates: I do not accept that view, and I support this Order and the necessity for it, subject to the safeguards which I am sure the Minister will consider, because the people who are living in these very unhealthy and overcrowded areas are labouring under serious difficulties. They are, however, anxious to help, and I hope the Minister will be able to help them.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Beechman: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), in opening



his observations, rightly said that in all parts of the House we realise that the times are critical. For my part I think the same can be said of the country at large. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said it is necessary to bring home to the country the urgency of the situation. I think the people know by now that we are living in most critical times, and they know that more severe conditions are likely to arise. I further agree that there is a great willingness to make sacrifices, remarkably so, but it is our duty not to abuse that willingness to make sacrifices. I say that in this Order there is an abuse of our people's willingness to make sacrifices because undue hardships and discomforts are sought to be imposed and because the Order itself shows, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that the Government are not willing to avail themselves of that willingness to sacrifice which has been so remarkably exemplified.
It is upon certain sections of the community, the old people and housewives, that the burden of this Order particularly falls. It has been amazing during the war, since the war and even after our victory to see how the women of the household have sustained continually increasing burdens. And here are more—and let us make no mistake—very severe burdens indeed, that endanger the homes of the people throughout the country for the sake of three days' output of coal. We cannot elaborate alternatives because of the Rules of Order, but I very much agree with what was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson). Nobody grudges the coal miners their coal; I certainly do not, and we understand how natural it is that they should have it, but I for one do not believe that the coal miners of this country understand that if they gave up a substantial proportion of their free coal it would not be necessary to impose these burdens on the housewives of the country.

Mr. Blyton: Does the hon. Member appreciate that there is no free coal for miners; it is part of their wages?

Mr. Beechman: I will not elaborate it further. I do not grudge it to them We know that there are now more pit-baths and more drying facilities, and I suggest that the Minister should give this aspect of the matter his attention.
We have heard what the housewife would do if she wanted to dry the clothes of a child who had come in wet from school. Let us get down to the realities of the position. If a child is ill is the housewife to run out to get the doctor for a certificate? Can she go out? Think of the circumstances in a rural area where the hardworked doctor may not arrive for a whole day. Would the housewife sit down and be content under this Order to see her child ill, suffering, cold, because she was not allowed to turn on the electric fire or the gas heater? The vice of such Orders as this is that they make criminals of us all. My right hon. Friend has said that our people would all be going to prison. It seems to me that they might do worse than go to prison because, I doubt whether, under the terms of this Order, prisons are residential premises, and people might be much better off there. In conclusion, let us remember that we hope to build up ourselves and our outlook on life during the summer months so as to be able the better to suffer the rigours of the winter. The Order will put an added tension into our lives and will take away from our cheer during the summer months. It will gravely imperil the power of resistance of this country for the time when people will have to face the terrible rigours of the coming winter.

5.3 p.m.

Mrs. Middleton: In making my contribution to this Debate I shall speak not so much as a Member of Parliament as a housewife. During the major part of the time that I have been in the House I have also been running a ten-roomed house of my own, mostly single-handed. I, therefore, know something of the difficulties in which the Order will involve the housewives of this country. I want to add my voice to those of hon. Members who have begged the Minister to withdraw the Order and to substitute something which will be equitable in its operation. I am opposed to the Order on two counts. I first suggest that it is impossible to apply the Order. Secondly, even if it were possible to apply the Order to some extent, I say that the Order would be inequitable in its operation.
I want to beg my right hon. Friend not to make the housewives of this country into a class of law breakers and law


evaders, for that is what is likely to happen. I speak from my own experience. During the time when we were restricted in the use of electricity during the fuel crisis I found it impossible to run my home satisfactorily without to some extent evading the Orders which had been imposed upon us. I had to be here in the morning for a Standing Committee and throughout the day to do my duty in this House. I found that if I were to run my home as it ought to be run and to provide for the comfort of those who live there, and if the Order was not to be broken, I needed to stay up after I had left this House, until one o'clock, two o'clock or even three o'clock in the morning, in order to do the cooking, ironing and other things which needed to be done.
I suggest to the House that the Order which we are now discussing places upon women who, like myself, are doing another job, besides working in their homes, a burden it is impossible for them to bear. I would like the House also to remember the effect that evasions of the law have upon public morale. We have seen something of this effect in countries on the Continent of Europe during the resistance movements. Even though laws were broken in a right and just cause, it is now generally agreed that constant evasion of the law had a demoralising effect upon people who were constantly living a lie in the interests of liberty. I do not want to see that kind of thing happening to the housewives of this country. Housewives have borne a very heavy burden, both during the war and since. It is our task to see that further burdens are not placed upon them in the way in which a burden would be placed by this Order.
I suggest to the Minister that there are other things that could be done to bring about the economies he desires. If I am within the rules of Order I want to suggest one of the things which can be done. All kinds of new electrical equipment have been introduced into the houses on the new housing estates and into the prefabricated bungalows, but very little has been done to instruct the housewife in the proper use of it. As one who uses an electric cooker I know how difficult it is—indeed how almost impossible it is—for the uninitiated house-

wife to avoid considerable wastage of electric current. She does not know just by instinct when to turn the oven off and when the heat will be sufficient to finish her cooking. Much help could be given to her which today is not given. My right hon. Friend would be doing a far greater service to the housewives in general and to the saving of fuel in particular if he paid some attention to instructing and assisting women who are using electrical gadgets for the first time.
I should like to give two illustrations from my own personal experience. I was told a few weeks ago by a woman who goes into these new homes on behalf of a certain gas company that, in a prefabricated bungalow, she found a woman using the refrigerator to air her husband's socks. That suggestion may seem ridiculous, but nevertheless it is true. It was a gas refrigerator. In the side of the refrigerator towards which the heat was drawn, in the process of referigeration, there was a warm patch. The housewife had discovered it and there she put her husband's socks to get them aired. She did not realise, because no one had told her, that by so doing she was actually hampering the process of refrigeration. Again, I went recently into a home where a young woman said, "I am in very great difficulty about my 'Ideal' boiler; either it roars away and the water boils, or I cannot get it to heat at all, or else my kitchen is filled with smoke; nobody has told me how to manage this stove." It so happens that I have an "Ideal" boiler at home, and I was able to go into the kitchen and, in a few moments, tell her how to work the dampers in the stove so as to get the desired result. I give those illustrations because I want the House and the Minister to realise that if there were more help given, particularly to young married women, in using equipment of this sort, there could be a very considerable saving made in the use of electricity, gas and solid fuel, and, moreover, the housewives themselves would very greatly appreciate it, because, particularly in working-class homes, it would help them to cut down their consumption very considerably.
I believe this Order will be impossible to carry through. The Government cannot compel people to obey the Order. If they cannot compel them to obey, is it not much better to get people voluntarily to co-operate, abandoning compulsion?


The housewives of this country, who have done so much for the country during the last eight to ten years, who have carried burdens second to none and probably greater than all, will co-operate with the Minister because they realise the need for co-operation, but the Minister will get the maximum result if, instead of imposing penalties, he carries through a campaign of publicity and asks the housewives to co-operate with him in order to save the nation in this very difficult time in our history.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: This Order is the greatest confession of failure and lack of foresight that has yet been produced by the Minister of Fuel and Power. On this occasion, the Minister has contrived to show too much imagination in the wrong place and too little imagination in another place. If the Minister supposes that between 5th May and 30th September the majority of days and nights will be sufficiently warm and comfortable for the ordinary householder to do without electricity or gas for heating, he is not only past praying for, but his imagination has risen to heights—

Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of dwelling houses in Britain have neither electrical nor gas heating, and that even those that have also get an allocation of coal?

Mr. Raikes: Is the hon. Member for North Wembley (Mr. Hobson) aware that, in the Government's housing programme, the majority of the houses that have been built during the last year for the brave new world have been prefabricated, and that practically all of them are entirely electrically heated, and have no other means of heating?

Mr. Hobson: That is entirely wrong.

Mr. Raikes: The hon. Member says I am entirely wrong, but the prefabricated houses that I have had an opportunity of going into in my own constituency are entirely so. It is also true that a very large number of flats and a certain number of houses rely wholly upon gas and electricity. I live in such a flat myself. It shows a curious degree of imagination to suppose that those flats and houses can have any reasonable heating from 5th May until the end of September if they are to he utterly precluded from making use of

electrical or gas heating. I shall not say anything in regard to offices, except that both in May and September there will be many cold fingers and bodies in a number of offices to which the prohibition of space-heating applies.
I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party, with whom I seldom agree, that on this occasion the Minister has shown extraordinarily bad psychology. Housewives are willing and anxious to co-operate with the Government as much as they can, but there will, I am afraid, be many cold nights between now and the end of September, to say nothing of cold days. In those homes where, when the Purchase Tax was taken off, people bought electrical equipment, imagining that they would be able to use it, does the Minister really think that on a cold night Mrs. Jones or Mrs. Smith will say to her little boy, "Billy, you have got a little bit of a cold corning on, we will let it rip, and then when you have a high temperature, I shall be able to call in the doctor and get a doctor's certificate, and then we will be able to have a fire; so cheer up, Billy, about 48 hours after the temperature goes up we shall have a permit from the fuel officer to get some heating"? Of course, that will not happen; what will happen, when the child, or even the husband, has a cold, is that the heating will be turned on. And when some people begin to switch on the heat because there may be illness in the house on a cold night, other people will follow suit, and there will be less and less saving of fuel and a greater contempt for the law.

Mr. Tiffany: Is the hon. Member referring to ordinary coal fires? If so, will he look at paragraph 6, Subsection (1) of the Order?

Mr. Raikes: I am discussing those houses where it is not possible to have a coal fire.

Mr. Hobson: They are a very small minority.

Mr. Raikes: A very dangerous view which has been taken by hon. Members opposite on a number of these Orders in recent months is that if it is a question of a small minority, it does not very much matter whether they get justice. Whether the number be small or large, it is only right and proper that all persons—

Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Member aware that a small minority have a very great advantage over the vast majority in that they have electrical or gas heating over and above the basic maximum allowance of 34 cwt.?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: They do not get it.

Mr. Hobson: They have had 26 cwt. in London.

Mr. Raikes: The hon. Gentleman is trying to avoid my point, which is about those premises where it is not the least use having an allocation of solid fuel because there is no grate in which to put it. I said all along that I am dealing with those premises heated by gas or electricity, where there is no alternative. It is true that the person who has an allocation of coal and a grate in which to burn it will be all right; I am not suggesting otherwise, but I am saying that this differentiation operates most unfairly in a number of homes where there is only electrical or gas heating. If those homes are so few, surely the saving will be so small as not to be worth saving by compulsion. If those homes are so few, why was not a voluntary appeal made? I understand that the whole object of this Order, with regard both to households and to shops and various other industrial premises, will amount to a saving of 2,500,000 tons. But if its effect will be, as I Maintain, to bring the law into greater disrepute than it is in now, if this Government by their action increase law-breaking, they will have done something even worse than an ordinary bad Act of Parliament. The strength of our nation has always been that our people believe in the law and keep it, but if you make nonsense of the law, as this Order does, the effect inevitably will be bad, not only during the six months when the Order is in force, but for a long time afterwards insofar as the moral of this nation is concerned.
On those grounds I am delighted that this Prayer has been put down. I am delighted to be, for once in a way, in complete accord with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party. I believe that this Order is unjust and unwise, that it cannot work, that it will bring the law into disrepute, and this Government into even greater disrepute than it is in already.

5.22 p.m.

Lady Grant: I will not go into the reasons or the necessity

for having this Order at all, because, no doubt, measures for increasing fuel production will be debated later on the Adjournment. However, I would like to speak briefly on the Order from the consumer's point of view. When one first looks at this Order, there seem to be many anomalies which will make it entirely unworkable. In that respect I am in complete agreement with the hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton), who said that it would lead only to a great deal of evasion of the law by a normally law-abiding people who are only too anxious to cooperate. I do not agree with her, however, when she suggests that something else should be substituted, because the alternative to this Order is to appeal to the public for voluntary savings.

Mrs. Middleton: I am sorry I did not make myself clear, but that was the point of what I was saying. I appeal to the Minister to substitute voluntary co-operation for compulsion.

Lady Grant: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Lady, and I hope she will support us in the Lobby. Coming as I do from the far north of Scotland, this Order on the first view appears to me to be unpractical. It is unpractical legislation to suggest that between the months of May and September space heating in residential premises shall be prohibited all over the country. There are certain parts of the country not only in Scotland which suffer from a peculiarly cold, humid and unpredictable climate. Particularly in the north of Great Britain there are parts where there are very few days when the home can be without some form of heating, not only because of the cold but because of the chilly, damp atmosphere which breeds so many ills. In the North of Scotland we are in a rather unfortunate position because, as hon. Members know, our crops are at least three weeks behind those in the South of England. We have had the imposition of double summer time, which means that early rising makes it absolutely imperative to have some form of heating. Therefore, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, that the Minister might consider whether it would not be possible to have some form of exemption in the more Northern parts of Great Britain.
Another point which needs clarification and inquiry in this Order is that of the


provision made for elderly people. In paragraph 5 we are told that the Order does not prohibit the consumption of fuel in hospitals or institutions for the sick, infirm or aged. I and many of my hon. Friends on these benches have had letters from people all over the country putting forward the case of elderly people, not only those who live in houses heated only by gas or electricity, but from those who have alternative forms of fuel. Many elderly people, not having the vitality or energy to generate warmth, have made it the custom to turn on an electric or gas heater for a short while to heat the room, which is infinitely more economical than burning solid fuel for a much longer period. Perhaps when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will give us an indication of some measure of exemption for elderly people.
I am in entire agreement with everything said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Davies) in his very knowledgeable remarks regarding young children. May I endorse on behalf of those households where there are children of school age? I can speak from my own experience of a vigorous family aged 10 and 12, who are constantly going out, and coming in soaked to the skin, that it is very necessary to have some form of warmth for heating and drying their clothes. I do not find in paragraph 5, or anywhere else in the Order, any provision for heating day nurseries. As far as I can make out, they do not come within the terms of paragraph 5. Again, I would like to ask, in regard to paragraph 3, which deals with non-residential premises, what is to be the position of doctors and dentists and professional men? Are their premises to remain unheated? That would surely cause only further embarrassment to patients already waiting in chilly anticipation of what is to come. We are told in the last paragraph of the explanatory note that central heating is no longer to be prohibited. But what of those forms of central heating, to which most of the modern appliances conform, which are run on gas? Do they come within the terms of this Order, because that will affect many offices and institutions.
Lastly, I support the Motion for Annulment because I feel the Order will not serve the purpose for which it was introduced. It will, as has been pointed out

already, cause great inequality. There are exemptions by which certain parts of the country served by hydro-electric schemes will be able to use as much gas or electricity as they like. It is unfortunate that great industrial cities should be at a disadvantage compared with other parts of the country, alhough I cannot help saying that we welcome the fact that this Order recognises that the Fort William scheme and similar schemes may use their own source of power. I support everything which has been said regarding the detrimental effect this Order will have on those who have the task of keeping house today. The housewives of the country have all along been only too willing to co-operate. One has to remember that an Order of this nature is striking at the very root of family life.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Hobson: They get their coal allocation.

Lady Grant: If hon. Members would only wait until I have finished my sentence. Husbands and others when they come back from work expect to have some little relaxation. Are they always expected to be in the best temper, when they find they are not able to have a little warmth? [An HON. MEMBER; "That is not true."] Hon. Members opposite are, no doubt, most abstemious in the home, but I suggest that this Order is not going to serve the purpose for which it is brought forward. It is going to lead to great inequalities and will be very difficult to enforce except by most unpleasant and totalitarian means and we do not want any more snoopers in this country. The country should be told the plain unvarnished facts, however grave, and should be asked to make a voluntary reduction. This country has always responded best, not when the people were being herded and driven, but when they were being inspired and led.

5.32 p.m.

Mrs. Florence Paton: It is always pleasant when one can agree with much that has been said on the Opposition benches, and I find myself in agreement with much of what has been said by the hon. Lady the Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant), especially in regard to the question of elderly people. I join my wishes with hers in that respect. If it is possible, in some


way, to make a distinction in regard to elderly people, I think the Minister should try to find a way to assist them. I do not however agree with the hon. Lady when she speaks of family life. I have the feeling that she knows precious little about the life of the average working-class family. Any working-class family—and there were 12,500,000 before 1938 whose average income was less than £2 10s. a week—will tell her that one of their bitterest memories has been that of cold rooms in winter time all through the years before the war—

Lady Grant: When I referred to family life, I was not referring only to one section of the community. I was referring to every family in this nation.

Mr. Hobson: That is the answer to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Paton: I suggest that the noble Lady was referring to a portion of the community. I have referred to the fact that 12,500,000 families before the war had an average of less than £2 10S. a week with which to buy everything; how much coal, electricity and gas could working-class families buy in winter time, or summer time, to heat their houses? If it is a question of breaking up family life, there must have been a great deal of family life broken up before the war.
I wish to put a special point to the Minister in regard to the recent sufferings of people through the floods. In my Division of Rushcliffe in Nottinghamshire, there is a big area which not only had floods this year, but had almost equal floods last year. There are two particular areas, West Bridgford and Colwick, which had floods last year in which the water came up to the picture rail of the ground floor rooms of houses, and this year they have experienced the dreadful tragedy of having water up to the top bedroom window. The Minister will realise that in those houses the problem of drying out the rooms is going to be one not for one or two weeks, but perhaps for several months. People in my constituency tell me that it was months after last year's floods before they felt that their houses were really dried out.
Now that the experience has been repeated, they have the problem over again. They have not sufficient coal to heat all the rooms and dry them out. I ask the

Minister if under paragraph 6, sub-paragraph (1) it is possible to grant an extra licence to those people—they are known, and can be indicated almost to a person—whereby they can be treated as an exception, and can use gas or electric fires to heat the rooms and dry out their houses. This does not apply only to my own constituency, but to a large number of areas in the country. In my constituency there is a specific problem, because it is the second experience of flooding in two consecutive years and therefore something special ought to be done. I ask the Minister to take this point into consideration, and I hope some concession will be granted to these people.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: If argument really counted in this Debate, I think this Order by now would be dead. It would have been killed by the speeches of two hon. Ladys, one speaking on the Government side, and one from this side, of the House. They were the speeches of the hon. Members for Sutton, Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton) and South Aberdeen (Lady Grant). An Order of this kind makes a person like myself, who is sympathetic to the Government and anxious that it should achieve its main purpose, despair. It shows a lack of knowledge of the psychology of the people. My own view, strongly held, is that a voluntary appeal to the public brings out the best in the British people—

Mr. Hobson: rose—

Mr. Lipson: —if I may finish my sentence—whereas a compulsory Order brings out the worst, and that has been shown again and again in the history of this country.

Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Member aware that when a voluntary appeal was made in February, the consumption of electrical energy for the month was 776 million units greater than before?

Mr. Lipson: When I talk about a voluntary appeal, an appeal for co-operation, I mean an appeal to every one concerned in the question of fuel—both of production and consumption. That appeal should be made, not only to the public who consume, but also to the miners who produce. In particular, I would like the example to be followed of what was done during the war in regard to National


Savings. In every part of the country we had one week in which there was a special target. A special appeal was made and it was successful. I would like to see one week set aside in every mining area during which the miners should be asked to produce the additional amount of coal required to meet the coal needs in their area, so that this Order would no longer be necessary. I believe that a specific appeal of that kind to the miners, coupled with an appeal to the public not to use electric and gas fires unnecessarily during the summer, would have the desired effect.

Mr. Robens: The hon. Member must be aware that the miners have a target. Every pit has a target. If he would go round the mining areas he would find the flag fluttering at the top by the pit gear when that target is reached. What further target on top of the present one does he suggest?

Mr. Lipson: We have not been told how much saving it is expected can be brought about by this Order. The 2,500,000 tons which consumers have to save covers much more than space heating. I am concerned purely with domestic space heating. Two and a half million tons of coal is under three days' production. I am satisfied that the gap could be bridged by a combination of saving and increased production, the miners on the one hand making a special effort for one week—I am only asking for one week—and the public making an effort generally throughout the period, in order to avoid the need for this Order. I believe it could be done. I am sure that that is the right method of approach.

Mr. Hobson: We have tried it.

Mr. Lipson: Well, try it again. There is one argument which I have heard frequently from the Government benches during this Parliament which certainly cannot be used on this occasion. The Government cannot say that they have a mandate for this. There can be very few among those who voted for Government supporters in 1945, who expected that an Order of this kind would be introduced in 1947, after two years of Labour administration.

Mr. Hobson: Coal consumption, as well as production, has gone up.

Mr. Lipson: I think the Government owe something better than this Order to

the people who put them in power. Therefore, I say that the Government ought to think again on this matter. In regard to the overall consumption of fuel, this Order probably would result in greater rather than smaller consumption. Whereas all that happens, or is likely to happen, under present conditions, is that on a cold or chilly morning or evening in the summer an electric or gas fire might be put on for half an hour and the discomfort removed, it may mean that there will be the consumption of coal on fires for two, three or four hours. A fire might be lit in the morning and kept burning throughout the day. Ultimately there is not likely to be any real saving of fuel. Nobody in these days—or, if so, only a minority that we can afford to ignore—puts on an electric or gas fire for heating purposes during the summer months unless it is absolutely necessary.
I wish particularly to stress the appeal made on behalf of elderly people. Old people living alone seem to be in a special position of hardship under this Order. One ought to remember that of all sections of the community probably they are the most hard hit by food rationing. In the case of old people living alone the rations do not go very far. If, at the same time, they are to be exposed to the rigours of our climate without the means of protection afforded by a gas or electric stove used for a short time, they will suffer unfair hardship. My view is that the Government have gone to the absolute limit already in the burden which they have put upon the domestic consumer. They ought not to go any further. The honest and conscientious will try to observe this Order, probably at a sacrifice of health and vitality which they ought not to be asked to make. Those who have no scruples will flout the Order and they will get away with it. It is impossible to prevent it.
The hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) showed that in practice the Order is really unworkable because it is based on two wrong assumptions. One assumption is that all houses in this country are dry and that people are living in decent conditions. That is not true. We were told that in Birmingham there were a large number of back-to-back houses. I know of many people in my constituency who live in damp basements where before they go to bed it is necessary for them to put on an electric or gas fire if they


are not to suffer serious consequences. This Order is too rigid. It makes no allowance for that kind of thing. It does not make any allowance for the climatic conditions of the country, and we know how very erratic they can be.
I ask the Government to reconsider this Order. I am sure that a voluntary appeal on the lines that I have suggested—if need be keeping this Order in reserve in the background—would have the desired effect. A rigid and inflexible Order of this kind is bound to inflict unnecessary and unreasonable hardships and is not likely to achieve the object which the Government have in mind. We are all as anxious as hon. Members opposite to try to help the country through the fuel crisis. Where we differ is on the methods to be employed. The very small saving which this Order can achieve does not justify the hardships it will inevitably cause.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Asterley Jones: Appeals have been made from various parts of the House that another effort should be made to achieve the object which this Order seeks to gain by a system of voluntary co-operation. I think that we heard all these arguments last July during the Debate on bread rationing. Precisely similar arguments were put forward then. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people are voluntarily cutting down their consumption but there still remains a number of people—I do not say that there is a large number—who simply do not respond to appeals for voluntary saving. The effect is that inevitably those conscientious people, who are doing their best, see a neighbour along the road making no effort at all, and so they say, "Well, if so-and-so along the road does not bather, why should we?" It is for that reason that I have come to the conclusion that some form of Order is absolutely essential to enforce restriction upon those who are not responsive to an appeal for voluntary saving.
It is, of course, the easiest thing in the world for hon. Members to get up and make a heartfelt appeal on behalf of some particular section or other of the community, and with all those appeals one can of course agree, but the short point surely is, are we—taking ourselves as ordinary average inhabitants of this country—going to be perhaps just a little

bit chilly from time to time during these coming summer months or are we going to be very cold rather more often during next winter? Surely that is a reasonable choice. It may very well be that we can achieve far more in the way of increased production and so on, but we have to be realistic about it. I would not say that I should be seriously inconvenienced by not using electric fires or gas fires for heating during the months of May to September, but—and here I have one criticism which I hope the Minister will be able to meet—electric and gas fires are not always used purely for heating a room. They are also used for drying clothes and other things.
Reference has already been made to the drying out of rooms which have been flooded, the drying out of rooms in which there have been leaks and the drying of clothes for children who come home wet from school, but I am astounded that no hon. Member has so far made reference to the drying of the enormous amount of washing which mothers of young babies have to do. I can see no real solution to this if the Order goes ahead as it stands. I must immediately, in accordance with the practice of this House, declare my interest in this matter. I have a young baby whose expenditure of the articles which are now generally called "nappies," I believe, is positively astronomical. The turnover of these articles is such that it is quite impossible to wait even in the best English summer for a fine day. We work normally on a 24-hour turnover. If it happens to be raining the accumulation either gets so great as to be quite impossible to deal with or else they have to be dried by artificial means. The Minister might suggest that we light a coal fire, but that would be far more wasteful than turning on an electric fire, as it may be in my case, or a gas fire as it may be in the case of other people. In other cases there will perhaps be one of these boiler fires that heat water before which these articles can be dried. Some people have got them and find them useful, but other people have not got them.
The upshot is that quite a considerable number of people in the country are faced with this large amount of washing for small children for which there is no other means of drying on wet days than turning on an electric or gas fire for an hour or


so. Even when there is a fine day the vast majority of mothers will not use one of these articles, even though it has been drying in the scorching sun, before first holding it for a few minutes before a fire in order to make sure that it is absolutely dry.
The Minister has power in this Order to give a licence under paragraph 6 (1) and I hope that he will be very forthcoming on this matter. On 24th April he said that he had had this particular point in mind and that he thought that any such cases might come within the category of the relaxation and that they would have to be based on the production of a medical certificate. I wonder whether it is really necessary to have a medical certificate for these things. Surely we can take it that any home which has children or a child under the age of two is allowed to use these appliances for the purpose of drying washing? I hope that the Minister will be very amenable on this subject, as he always is when an appeal to reason is made, and that he will afford this relaxation.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady the Member for Rushcliffe (Mrs. Paton) used an argument of a nature which is somewhat frequently employed from the benches opposite. In referring to the hon. Lady the Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant), the hon. Member for Rushcliffe indicated the line of argument that because a large number of homes had been cold before the war that was an argument for this Order making more homes cold now.

Mrs. Paton: I did not use that argument at all. The hon. Lady the Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant) said that this Order was likely to break up family life. My argument was that if family life was to be broken up by this Order, family life must have been broken up very much more before 1938 because so many families then had only about £2 10s. a week to buy everything.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Exactly. The hon. Lady has almost in the same words repeated the argument to which I referred, and I am grateful to her for refreshing the memory of the House on the matter. The hon. Lady spoke in support of this Order. The only conceivable relevance to this Order of a refer-

ence to homes being cold before the war was that because homes were cold before the war it did not matter if they were cold now—[HON. MEMBERS: "No.''] Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Messer: They do not want to. They are not lawyers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Otherwise the hon. Lady's argument was quite irrelevant to this Order. I should not be so unchivalrous as to suggest that. But it is not a justification of this Order, which will undoubtedly make homes cold, to say that other homes were cold in other conditions. Hon. Members opposite are so prone to use just that type of argument to justify the various impositions which they are imposing on the long-suffering people of this country, but I do not think they should be allowed to get away with it.
Hon. Members opposite did not like it when the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) pointed out that they had no mandate for this, but that is perfectly true. Let hon. Members opposite speculate as to what their electoral fortunes would have been if there had been displayed at the General Election the statement, "Vote Labour and abolish domestic heating during the summer months; own the coal industry and have less warmth in your homes than you have ever had in history." If hon. Members had had the honesty to do it, let them speculate how many of them would then have been here, and let us discuss the Order, not as the hon. Lady the Member for Rushcliffe seemed to, as a kind of political tit-for-tat, but on the basis that it is a savage blow at the comfort of a great many homes and can only be justified if its necessity is abundantly and manifestly proved.
It is perfectly true that some of my hon. Friends have urged the right hon. Gentleman the Minister to make another public appeal. I think that appeal would fail. It would fail for the reason that such an appeal requires to be made by a Minister of Fuel and Power in whom the public have confidence. The public have no confidence in the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power—

Mr. Hobson: Again?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —and that is why his appeal in the earlier part of the year,


to which the hon. Member for North Wembley (Mr. Hobson) referred in one of his numerous interventions, failed. I would therefore add as an addendum to the suggestion from this side of the House of a voluntary appeal that a necessary condition of that appeal is that it should be made by a Minister of Fuel and Power whom the public believe to have some tenderness for the consumer and not to be wholly interested in keeping in with the National Union of Mineworkers.
The right hon. Gentleman has decided to bolster up his failure to provide adequate fuel with the sanctions of the criminal law. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] From that interruption, hon. Members opposite do not appear to understand that this Order does invoke the sanctions of the criminal courts. Any person who, without the Minister's licence, uses space heating during the summer months, commits a criminal offence for which, under the Defence Regulations, he can be sent to prison for three months. Therefore I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman is doing that. How does he propose to enforce this Order? Is he suggesting a wholesale search of private houses to see whether somebody has turned on the gas, because, unless he is prepared to do that, he must know perfectly well that this Order is unenforceable. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterly Jones) referred quite rightly to a number of people who would be deaf to appeals. It is no use using compulsion against those people unless one can enforce it, because just as they would be deaf to appeals, so they would be deaf to any threat of the criminal law, unless it was manifestly clear that that law could be enforced. Therefore, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, or the Parliamentary Secretary who he is putting up to reply for him, how it is proposed to enforce this Order. Is it seriously intended to be an enforceable Order, or is it just one of the right hon. Gentleman's aberrations?
I want to ask another question. As I understand it, Section i of the Order prohibits space heating and nothing else. Supposing an electric or a gas fire is used, both to dry the "nappies," to which the hon. Member for Hitchin referred, and, incidentally, to warm the room, is it an offence committed against this Order, or is it not? The people are entitled to be

told whether, when they have decided to use this apparatus to dry clothes or for any other purpose, and, incidentally, to warm the room, they are committing an offence against the Order or not. If they are not, I suggest that this is what will happen. Hon. Members who before the war used to take refreshment late in the evening, particularly, I imagine Liberal Members, will recollect that, in order to obtain that refreshment, it was necessary to take the statutory sandwich. I foresee that under this Order the statutory "nappy" will take the place of the statutory sandwich, and that, provided one "nappy" is displayed in the Parliamentary Secretary's drawing room, he will be able to heat that no doubt elegant salon to the greatest possible extent.

Mr. John Paton: Would he have to supply a statutory baby also?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That question is one which should be addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary; it is he who has to hold that particular baby. I am asking what the Government Order means. Whether the "nappy" is sufficient, or whether one would have to have the baby with it, is a matter for the Government to say. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton) for adding that characteristically charming question to the, perhaps, not so charming question which I desire to put to the Parliamentary Secretary.
There is another matter of which the right hon. Gentleman has already had notice, because I raised it with him when he made his statement last week. It is the case of households where there are young children. The hon. Member for Hitchin referred to it, but I should like to refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory. On 24th April, I asked the right hon. Gentleman the following question:
In framing the Order, will the right hon. Gentleman consider a relaxation of the ban on domestic space heating in the homes where there are very small children—say, under two years of age?
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
I have had that in mind and I think such cases might come within the category of the relaxation which is to be based on the production of a medical certificate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 1257.]
I am not clear what that answer means. Toes it mean that. in every case where


there are young children, it is necessary to obtain a medical certificate in order to demonstrate what must be known to everybody, that very young children require to be kept warm? Does it mean that every mother in the country has to go to the doctor to collect a medical certificate? That is what the right hon. Gentleman's answer appears to mean. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to elucidate that part of the Order. Will there be a general dispensation in the case of small children under any specified age, or will it be necessary, in every case, solemnly to go round to a doctor and obtain a medical certificate?
There is another question to which I would like an answer.. Many of my hon. Friends and, indeed, some hon. Members opposite, have raised the question of the effect of this Order on the health of the community. Has the Ministry of Health been consulted as to the expected effect of this restriction on the health of this nation during the summer? If it has, may the House be told what the answer was? If it has not, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he does not consider that this is a matter in which the Ministry of Health may well have a compelling interest?

Mr. Hobson: No.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member for Dundee who, apparently, regards himself as a greater expert on matters medical than the Minister of Health—indeed he may well be right—says "No." I am entitled to say that the effect upon the health of the community of the sudden cessation, for the first time in our history, of certain forms of heating during the summer months, is a matter which would entitle hon. Members of this House, in their duty to their constituents, to endeavour to ascertain whether the responsible department, so far as health is concerned, had been consulted, and what its opinion was. Therefore, obliged as I am to the hon. Member for Dundee for his expert—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I was advised that he was the hon. Member for Dundee; if he is not, I apologise to Dundee. He is the hon. Member who could, perhaps, be sufficiently identified as the one who has made a number of interventions this afternoon. I understand that he is the hon. Member for North Wembley (Mr. Hobson). Notwithstanding that, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to

tell the House the answer to that question, which I think he has sufficiently apprehended.
There is one other matter to which I want to refer. Hon. Members on the Government Front bench were very indignant the other day at the suggestion that this would not be a country which would be very attractive to tourists this summer. They indicated that the Government put a great deal of value on the tourist trade. Has the Parliamentary Secretary considered what the effect of English hotels being extremely cold places this summer will be upon that tourist trade, particularly upon the American tourist trade? If it is necessary, and I have an open mind on this point, to stop heating hotels, surely it would be advisable to warn would-be tourists that they are coming to a very cold and uncomfortable country, and had better prepare for it. [Interruption.] To let people come here this summer without due warning, will inevitably have the consequence that they will never come again. For hon. Members opposite to become so very indignant at that observation of mine seems to reveal a strange state of mind.
The Parliamentary Secretary, as I apprehend it, knows well that when he goes to the Box he has to justify what is yet another blow at the long suffering housewife of this country. The hon. Lady the Member for Sutton, Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton), I am glad to say, made it clear what a blow to the housewife this Order would be. I am very glad she did so, because some hon. Members opposite always seem to regard the championing of the housewife as a Tory plot of considerable ingenuity, whereas the hon. Lady nailed that lie tolerably effectively. The Parliamentary Secretary has to justify what is only the latest, and probably not the last, of a succession of blows which this Government have struck at the homes of this country. I do not know whether they can justify it, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary realises that it is up to him to try.

6.11 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): We have listened to a series of characteristically irresponsible speeches from quite a number of hon. Members on the opposite benches.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Including the hon. Gentleman's own supporters.

Mr. Gaitskell: Some of those speeches came from hon. Members whom normally I should have regarded as being very responsible in their attitude, and some came from those from whom I do not expect responsible opinions at all. The basic assumption, of course, on which this discussion proceeds, and on which this Order is framed, is that it is necessary to impose some restriction on the use of gas and electricity in domestic premises this summer, and that, so far as possible, general fuel economy measures should be carried a stage further in non-residential premises. I am not quite clear whether the Opposition really accept those premises or not. I appreciate their difficulty, on the grounds of Order, in making their position clear, but I do know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), speaking in this House on 26th February, appeared to accept the first of these premises. I do not think the second one has been challenged by anybody. He said on that occasion:
There seems to be no reason to doubt that unless definite steps are taken by the Government, domestic consumption of those kinds of fuel"—
he was referring to gas and electricity—

will continue to extend, to the detriment of supplies for industrial and other essential purposes.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c. 2098.]
There we agree. We think that is the essential background to this Debate.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) gave us what, I think, was described by Mr. Speaker as sketching in the background of the position. He did it from his own particular background—a very sketchy one indeed. He told us, in effect, that if he were Minister of Fuel and Power he would say to the miners, "Come on, boys, just produce some more. Bring it up to 235 million tons"—I think that was the figure he used—"and, by the way, I am afraid you will have to give up your house coal as well." Some reference has been made in the Debate to the correct psychological approach. All I can say is that I think it is a very good thing that the right hon. Gentleman is not dictating our psychological approach to the miners.
I propose, first of all, very briefly to remind the House of what this Order does, then to answer a number of detailed questions and points which have been raised, and finally, to argue the main case for the Order. This Order, first of all, abolishes certain restrictions which are now in force. It abolishes restrictions on the use of electricity during certain periods which have proved tiresome, though they were necessary at the time when they were imposed. I say at once that although those restrictions were necessary at the time, and fulfilled a very useful purpose, they are, in my opinion, quite unsuitable as a long period measure of restriction. Secondly, the Order also abolishes the simple central heating bans. It abolishes them because they are, for the most part, replaced by the general ban on non-residential premises in the Order. Having abolished those restrictions, it imposes what I think even opponents of the Order will agree is a very simple form of restriction. On the one hand, the use of gas and electricity in domestic or residential premises is prohibited during the Summer months, with certain exceptions. On the other hand, the use of any fuel in non-residential premises is prohibited also throughout the summer months and, indeed, for one month longer, again with certain exceptions.
I have been asked by the right hon. Gentleman, quite fairly, whether the electricity industry, who we consulted, were in favour of the first of these restrictions? No, Sir. They were opposed, they always have been, to any form of statutory restriction, but I think I am entitled to say that one does not usually find in those particular circles any great enthusiasm for cutting down the demand for electricity. [Interruption.] I say I do not think one usually finds there any particular enthusiasm. I do not think there is anything derogatory about that. It is very natural that people who, for years and years, have been concerned with pressing the sale of electricity, should not be very enthusiastic. However, the right hon. Gentleman asked me the question and I have given him the answer. We take the responsibility, for reasons which I will give in a moment, for making this ban statutory.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but, really, the statement is, I think, grossly unfair.


I do not know whether he was present or has seen the record of the conversations, but is it not a fact that the industry said that if a purely voluntary scheme, which they recommended, were adopted, they would do everything in their power to secure compliance, and that they thought by a voluntary scheme they would actually get the saving which will not be obtained by this Order?

Mr. Gaitskell: They were most bitterly opposed to various other suggestions which were made. I need not go into details about them now. There is nothing particularly confidential about them. They embodied other forms of rationing, and those whom we consulted were against any form of statutory control. As I have said, they always have been. They were in favour of voluntary methods. I am not saying for one moment that they were not prepared to operate a voluntary scheme, but I am saying they were always opposed to statutory restrictions of this kind. They were in 1942, as the right hon. Gentleman no doubt remembers. In case there is any misunderstanding, let me hasten to add that I am not suggesting they are refusing to cooperate in a voluntary campaign; certainly not. We have had every possible help from them in this connection.

Commander Galbraith: Was not the point this, that they did not consider these measures could be made effective? Is not that the reason they were against them?

Mr. Gaitskell: Not particularly. There were various reasons why they were against them. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) asked me some questions about what saving we thought we would achieve. We think we shall achieve a saving of 2,500,000 tons from these domestic restrictions, including the voluntary 25 per cent. cut. We think we shall also achieve perhaps another million tons of saving from the restrictions imposed on industry. I think the right hon. and learned Member was in favour of industrial restrictions. These figures are, of course, inevitably, very broad estimates; they cannot be more than that. Here, I think I may be able to anticipate the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We cannot say—and I will not attempt even a guess—how much saving would

come from the ban on the use of gas and electricity for space heating alone. It is simply impossible. I would prefer to leave it there. It would be dishonest to say any more.

Mr. C. Davies: What does the Parliamentary Secretary estimate the night shift heating will cost?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am afraid I cannot answer that without notice. I do not think, myself, that it is likely to be heavy. As the Order stands at the moment it is, of course, restricted to certain months—May, September and October. I am afraid I have not the figures with me. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked me a question about North Wales, and I should like to make the position clear. In the Order as it stands certain statutory undertakers are mentioned in the First Schedule. They are mentioned because their electricity is generated wholly by water power, and they are not linked with the grid. Therefore, there can be no possible advantage in saying that the consumers of that particular type of electricity should be cut down. That is the point. Also in the Order, the non-statutory undertakers, who generate by means other than coal or oil—that is to say, again chiefly by water power, or in some cases by wind—are exempted. They are exempted because they also are not connected with the grid. But in the case of North Wales, which is connected with the grid and does not, I think, obtain all its electricity from water power in any case—the essential point is that it is connected with the grid—that is included in the Order. The right hon. and learned Member also asked about Northern Ireland. That is essentially a domestic matter. It is one of those things which Northern Ireland does for itself. In the past it has always cooperated very well in matters of this kind, and I have not the slightest doubt that it will in this also.
References were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) to the allocation of solid fuel. I could not, I think, go into that matter in detail without getting very much out of Order. I should like, if I may, to say just this in answer to my hon. Friend. The position is, that if there is a strong case on grounds of need, because of dampness—the particular case which I think my hon. Friend mentioned—it is, of course,


within the discretion of the local fuel over-seer to grant an extra allocation. That is the present system. I cannot at this stage and on this occasion go into details about why we think this is the only workable system. I think I should probably have the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) with me on that. I ask my hon. Friend, if he would be so kind, to read the speech I made in the last Debate on fuel, at the beginning of April, when I dealt somewhat extensively with the subject.

Mr. Yates: What I am concerned about are the vast numbers of people who are not only not getting the maximum ration, but are not getting a reasonable ration. What guarantee can we give to them to make this Order more workable?

Mr. Gaitskell: Again, I cannot enter into all these points now. We can distribute only the amount of coal that is there; that is to say, the amount of coal that can be spared for domestic consumption. We can only ensure that it is fairly distributed. Within those limits I am prepared to discuss the figures, and perhaps my hon. Friend would have a further word with me about it. The hon. Lady the Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Grant) asked me a number of questions. Let me deal, first, with a relatively minor one. She asked about central heating by gas. If she looks at the Order—I think she referred to the Explanatory Note at the end—she will see that the change there relates purely to residential premises. Offices, of course, are covered by the general ban on all forms of space heating. I think that clears the position there. Perhaps I might explain at the same time—because some hon. Members may have been puzzled about the Explanatory Note—what precisely has happened. Under the old central heating ban all non-industrial and non-residential premises plus residential premises with more than 10 rooms were covered. Now we have made a new classification. In effect, we have said that, on the one hand, there are residential premises, which are covered by Article 1, and, on the other, there are non-residential premises which are covered by Article 3. What that means, in effect, is, that hotels and boarding houses which were previously covered by the central heating ban are now simply covered by the gas and electricity restrictions. It is

some years since that original ban was introduced, and we think that now the control over the allocation of coke and coal supplies for these premises is quite sufficient to prevent wasteful heating of that kind in those premises.
I now turn to a number of what I might call pleas of various kinds for various classes of persons, of all ages. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) in his, if I may say so, admirable and most intelligent speech, seemed to me to have exactly the right perspective about the whole matter. [Interruption.] It was a very intelligent speech. If the right hon. Gentleman had been here he would have learned a lot from it. The part which entertained the House most was the reference to the babies' nappies. I am happy to say that while I, myself, am slightly past the stage in which he finds himself, I still have a great deal of sympathy with what he has to say. I freely admit that the problem of, on the one hand, drying clothes for young children, and, on the other, of providing heating for very young children is a serious one. We are in consultation with the various organisations concerned on points of this kind. We have, of course, power in the Order to license exceptional cases. I want to say only this in addition. We shall consider these points, and the others which have been referred to in the Debate—many useful points were made by hon. Members who have been back to their constituencies—we shall take them into account, and discuss the matter with the organisations concerned and with other Departments, and if we think it is possible, we shall make exceptions. But I do not want to mislead the House into thinking that we can make wholesale exceptions, or that we can always tackle these problems in any very simple manner. Indeed, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) indicated some of the kinds of difficulty against which one might run in trying to make exceptions for drying nappies. However, we will look into the matter and do our best to meet the really bad cases, in which one can reasonably say there would otherwise be hardship.

Sir Harold Webbe: Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us which organisations he pro-


poses to consult in regard to the airing of babies' nappies? Surely, the only organisation is every mother in the land?

Mr. Gaitskell: There are a number of organisations which represent women in this country. I do not know whether the hon. Member was here when my right hon. Friend answered a question this afternoon. If he looks up the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see a list of the organisations which can be consulted. Those are the organisations with which we are in touch. If he is really interested, I am sure he will find it all there.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that he will enter into consultation, and so on. But does he appreciate the urgency of this matter? This Order comes into force on Monday, and will make it a criminal offence to use heating, for example, for young children from Monday onwards. Can he give some indication that action will be taken over the weekend?

Mr. Gaitskell: I have said we are already in consultation with those organisations. I can assure the hon. Member that we do appreciate the urgency of this particular matter.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: There is one further point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have listened to pretty well every speech in this Debate. If, as a result of this Debate, the right hon. Gentleman is going to consult the organisations—

Mr. Shinwell: We are doing it already.

Mr. Lindsay: This is only to emphasise it. What will he do about the Order? Apparently, there is very strong feeling on it throughout the House. Will he amend the Order?

Mr. Gaitskell: There is adequate provision for licensing.

Mr. Lindsay: I know.

Mr. Gaitskell: In this way exceptions could be arranged. There is not the slightest difficulty about it.
May I turn to the major issues raised in the Debate? I think the two chief criticisms put forward by hon. Members have been, first, that the Order is unfair, and, secondly, that it is unenforceable. I intend to deal with both of these points.

I claim at once that it is not more unfair than having no Order of this kind at all. Far too many hon. Members Opposite approach this whole problem from the point of view of electricity and gas consumers only; but the fact is that at the moment the system of fuel distribution and allocation is unfair because there is no control over the domestic consumption of gas and electricity. That is the point. So far, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery pointed out also, we have cut down the consumer of solid fuel. But all the time people with all-electric houses, with electric cookers, electric fires, electric water heaters—or people with gas appliances of the same kind—could use as much gas or electricity as they liked, until, of course, this last winter. All the time they have been completely free of restrictions.
I am bound to say that I cannot see that that is in the least fair. If we have to choose between asking domestic consumers of solid fuel to cut down still further and making those who consume gas and electricity make a contribution, surely it is the latter we must ask for it. In my own constituency, repeatedly, people have come up to me and said, "Why do you not do something to restrict the extravagant use of electricity?" They have come up and said, "We know that so-and-so has an electric fire on practically all day." We think that that is unfair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Snoopers."] Not official snoopers, but very naturally indignant neighbours. It is also a fact—and the House must take note of it—that, according to the last estimates we have had, the increase in the consumption of electricity by domestic consumers in 1940 over 1945 was a third—33⅓ per cent. increase. Practically the whole of the total increase, it is now evident, was on account of domestic consumption. [HON. MEMBERS: "The fault of the Chancellor of the Exchequer."] If that is the case, I do suggest that it is no great hardship to ask them to reduce consumption.

Mr. Harold Roberts: Was that not due to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made purchase of electrical outfits easier?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, I do not ascribe it to that at all. I ascribe it to the fact


that the people of this country have had full employment and more money, and have taken the opportunity to buy electric fires and use them. The fact is that complete fairness in this field is practicable only, if at all, with a full scale rationing system. We have abandoned any idea of a scheme of that kind—at any rate, for the moment—for reasons which my right hon. Friend gave in great detail in the last Debate on fuel. I do not think I need go into them here. They are absolutely familiar to the House, and, by and large, accepted by the House. We know we cannot have a system of rationing of that kind without enormous administrative cost; and even then, as I say, it is very doubtful whether it would be fair or not.
Let me turn to the second major issue, enforcement. Of course, we agree that this Order is obviously not fully enforceable in the sense that everybody infringing it can be caught or will be caught. That is clearly out of the question. As the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, who touched on this matter, knows perfectly well, we have not power to force an entry into private houses, and we do not intend to take that power. We have powers in the case of the business and commercial premises, and, sparingly and with discretion, they may have to be used. But in the case of the domestic premises we have no powers, and we shall not seek such powers. In my opinion, however, the fact that it is difficult to enforce does not mean that it is, therefore, of no value. I think, first, it is far better that people should know precisely where they stand in this matter. Of course, we can get search warrants, if necessary; information can be obtained, or may be forthcoming. We can deal with really flagrant cases.
I do ask hon. Members to believe that there is a lot of indignation in the country about people who are using electricity and gas extravagantly, and we must, in the last resort, be able to deal with them. I have even heard of cases of persons, not being friendly to the present Government, even deliberately, going to great expense to turn on electric fires. [Laughter.] I am glad to hear hon. Members laugh in their incredulity. I am bound to say it is a fact that I have heard cases of that kind reported to me. I hope that hon. Members opposite will agree that even they would not support actions of that kind. I believe that the general public


understand the need for this Order. They know perfectly well that something must be done to restrict the consumption of gas and electricity. They know well—better than some of the hon. Members opposite who spoke today—that we still face, unquestionably, a very grave fuel situation. [HON. MEMBERS; "Hear, hear."]

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Production is not enough.

Mr. Gaitskell: My right hon. Friend will deal very adequately with the question of production in the next Debate. I should be out of Order were I to go into it now. But the fact is that we must ask for some restriction, and, in my opinion, it would be very wrong of the Government to abandon all attempt to restrict consumption of gas and electricity by domestic consumers. I also think it would be grossly unfair—more unfair, far more unfair—than the present Order. I have given reasons why we cannot go further than this. We cannot go in for a full scale rationing system. But this Order is simple, and that is a tremendous merit. I ask hon. Members to appreciate that. It is perfectly clear and simple and intelligible; and we must remember, incidentally, when we are considering whether we can let up here and there, that we cannot abandon essential simplicity, otherwise the whole thing will become confused and lose a great deal of its value.
I quite agree that this Order itself, as well as the 25 per cent. cut, is bound to depend, to a very large extent, on voluntary support and co-operation. I believe that the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is quite wrong in his psychological approach to this matter. We have had purely voluntary appeals. My right hon. Friend has been criticised for going on making nothing but voluntary appeals. The time has come when we must stiffen those voluntary appeals by some statutory regulation. We think this is the easiest to understand. We believe it is not likely to cause hardship, except, as I have said, in a very limited number of cases. It will cause some discomfort—of course it will; but there is bound to be some discomfort if we are to get the necessary economy. In my opinion the country is prepared to stand for that, and I believe it prefers a definite move of this kind, rather than the


irresponsible, ostrich like, attitude which the Opposition are adopting, and on those grounds I ask the House to support the Order.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: rose—

Hon. Members: Divide.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I want to ask a question arising out of an answer given earlier today. Can the hon. Gentleman state the reasons why he is applying this Order to Scotland without any modification? What is the meteorological evidence for doing that? The Minister did say that this was a point which would be dealt with during the Debate.

Mr. Gaitskell: I apologise. I know that the hon. Lady also asked me about that. We will consider it, but I must point out that the central heating ban has hitherto been applied from 8th May—and this is only applied from 5th May—until 30th October, throughout the whole country, but there have been relaxations earlier in Scotland and in England. There may be, equally, under this Order. I will not say more.

Question put,
That the Control of Fuel (Restriction of Heating) Order, 1947 (S.R. &amp; O., 1947, No. 765), dated 25th April, 1947, a copy of which was presented on 28th April, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 227.

Division No. 180.]
AYES.
[6.40 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Houghton, S. G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Amory, D. Heathcote
Head, Brig. A. H,
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C
Pickthorn, K.


Beechman, N. A.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Bennett, Sir P.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)



Boothby, R.
Hollis, M. C.
Prescott, Stanley


Bower, N.
Howard, Hon. A
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Raikes, H. V.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Renton, D.


Butler, Rt. Hon- R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Jennings, R.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Byers, Frank
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Challen, C
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Langford-Holt, J.
Scott, Lord W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Cuthbert, W. N.

Linstead, H. N.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lipson, D. L.
Spence, H. R.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Sutcliffe, H.


Eccles, D. M.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Taylor, Vice-Adm, E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Erroll, F. J.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Teeling, William


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fox, Sir G.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Gage, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Touche, G. C.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Gammans, L. D.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Walker-Smith, D.


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Maude, J. C.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Medlicott, F.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Glyn, Sir R.
Mellor, Sir J.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Grant, Lady
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gridley, Sir A.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Winterton, At. Hon. Earl.


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison Maj. J. C. (Salisbury)
York, C.


Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'nc'ster)



Hare, Han, J. H. (Woodbridge)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harris, H. Wilson
Nicholson, G.
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Allighan, Garry
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Alpass, J. H.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Attewell, H. C.
Barstow, P. G.




Battley, J. R.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Pryde, D. J.


Berry, H.
Hale, Leslie
Randall, H. E.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hardy, E. A.
Ranger, J.


Binns, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Rankin, J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Blenkinsop, A
Hewitson, Captain M.
Richards, R.


Blyton, W. R.
Hicks, G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Boardman, H.
Hobson, C. R.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Bottomley, A. G.
Holman, P.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Royle, C.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
House, G.
Scollan, T.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hoy, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hubbard, T.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Simmons, C. J.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Irving, W. J.
Skinnard, F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Jay, D. P. T.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Burden, T. W.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Snow, Capt. J. W.



Callaghan, James
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Sorensen, R. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Key, C. W.
Sparks, J. A.


Clitherow, Dr. R.
King, E. M.
Stamford, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Steele, T.


Collindridge, F.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, C.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Lang, C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Cook, T. F.
Lavers, S.
Summerskill, Dr, Edith


Cooper, Wing-Comdr, G.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Swingler, S.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Sylvester, C. O.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Cove, W. G.
McAdam, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Crawley, A.
McAllister, G.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Crossman, R. H. S
McEntee, V. La T.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Daines, P.
McGhee, H. G.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McGovern, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
McKinlay, A. S.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Tiffany, S.


Delargy, H. J.
McLeavy, F.
Timmons, J.


Diamond, J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Titterington, M. F.


Dobbie, W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tolley, L,


Donovan, T.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Marquand, H. A.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Marshall, F, (Brightside)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mathers, G.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Edelman, M.
Medland, H. M.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mellish, R. J.
Walker, G. H.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mikardo, Ian
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Warbey, W. N.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mitchison, G. R.
Watson, W. M.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Monslow, W.
Weitzman, D.


Fairhurst, F.
Montague, F.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Farthing, W. J.
Moody, A. S.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Field, Capt. W. J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
West, D. G.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Moyle, A.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Follick, M.
Murray, J- D.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Foot, M. M
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wigg, Col. G. E.




Wilkes, L.


Foster, W. (Wigan)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
O'Brien, T.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williamson, T.


Gibbins, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Willis, E.


Gilzean, A.
Parker, J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Parkin, B. T.
Wyatt, W.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Yates, V. F.


Grenfell, D. R
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grey, C. F.
Pearson, A.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Grierson, E.
Peart, Capt. T. F.



Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Popplewell, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Mr. Hannan.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Pritt, D. N

FUEL SITUATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

6.50 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Minister of Fuel and Power,

my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) and I seem to be spending a good deal of our lives together these days. The Debate on the Adjournment, which now opens, enables us to review more widely the position of which the Order which has just been


accepted is a symptom. That Order is one of the signs of the shortages which have become, and which, it is feared likely, will remain a governing feature of our daily lives. To deal with these shortages great powers have been put into the hands of Ministers, and the House is natually anxious to know what use the Ministers are making of them.
At Question time today the President of the Board of Trade indicated, so far as I understood him, that there is a prospect of a rather larger amount of fuel being forthcoming than has hitherto been estimated. That being so, we should like to have tonight a revised version of the coal budget. What is the coal budget now? On 2nd April, the Minister of Fuel said he hoped that after October we should be producing coal at the rate of more than four million tons a week. By a simple sum, that four million tons a week equals 208 million tons a year. If we knock off four million tons for holiday week, the holiday with pay, and another four million tons for what one might call the inevitable wastage of the year, we get a figure of 200 million tons. If we make the necessary deductions for dirt, miners' coal, and other things, it does not seem that we shall reach a figure of 200 million tons, even with the addition of, say, 12 million tons from open-cast mining. It is admitted that that 200 million tons will be insufficient. That has been admitted by both the Federation of British Industries and the T.U.C. and, therefore, we should like to know what provision the Minister can make, and on what he bases his new provision. Does he think that he will reach, and hold, four million tons a week, with 18 million tons to make up for the loss of Saturday mornings? Previously, according to the Minister's recent speech, the industry was working a disorganised five-day week, and the Minister hopes to turn it over to an organised five-day week. He went so far as to say that he had not been able to tell the House the facts of the situation in relation to previous years, but that the industry had really been working a tacit five-day week, and that it was on that account that production was so low as it was. He said that it was hoped to improve this position by recognising these facts, and working an official five-day week instead of an unofficial five-day week
If that is so, there should now be no reduction of tonnage on account of the five-day week, but even an improvement. The figures we have seen per man shift indicate that that improvement would need to be of a very striking character to bring about an additional output of about 4 million tons on this basis, which is what I reckon will be required to implement the President of the Board of Trade's statement of today. We need not only to reach war figures but to surpass prewar figures. This seems a strong assumption to make. The Minister says, "I disclaim the power of accurate forecasting. I am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet." That betrays a proper modesty on his part, but we must press him a little on this point. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), a former Minister of Fuel and Power, will confirm that in his day the coal budget had to be very accurately laid before the War Cabinet during the war, and indeed before my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), whose motto in all these things was "Hard on the tops"—Dur au grands. As he himself has said, the memoranda which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford wrote to his colleagues during the war were sufficient to make any of them his enemies for life. He never spared any of his colleagues who was not exact in his figures, or who did not hold to his figures later. He was a man who had small patience with excuses, even successful excuses. Today, the Minister of Fuel and Power must give more exact figures of what he hopes the out-turn of the coal year will be.
There is one encouraging feature which has shown itself lately, namely the increased movement of men into the mines. The Government have made a great effort in this matter, and have now accepted the position that a greater labour force in the mines is desirable, as against its previous estimates that it would be possible to carry out the work with the existing labour force. We must congratulate the Government on the success of their efforts in this direction, but, of course, recruitment alone is not sufficient. Not only must men be trained above ground for work, but also below ground, so that they will be capable of taking their place at the coal face as skilled men. Allowance has not always been made for


that seriously limiting factor. A considerable effort, the recruitment of 30,000 adult men, has been made. But a great proportion of that labour force is "green labour," with which the mines previously did not have to deal. Mining is such a traditional, indeed, almost hereditary, occupation that normal recruitment for the industry has been from boys. Now, 30,000 men, all adults, and a considerable proportion of them "green labour," are coming in.
I wonder whether the Minister could make a further statement about the success of the training scheme. This question was raised in the last coal Debate, on 2nd April, but it was not then very exhaustively explored. We are informed by those closely acquainted with the matter, that for work underground during the training period before up-grading there must be supervisors at the rate of one to one. If we take a normal sized pit, producing 600,000 to 700,000 tons, with 300 men at the coal face—to up-grade something like 20 men per month—that means 60 men in training, which means 60 skilled miners supervising them. Clearly, in those circumstances, any attempt to have a greater throughput of new men in that pit might lead to actual diminution of output through the withdrawal of a larger number of skilled men to work as supervisors alongside that "green labour," where they could not produce anything like the same output as when they were working by themselves. Is that not so? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am asking for information. These things touch the lives of everyone of us. We must all, even non-technicians, take an interest in these matters of recruitment and training.

Mr. Murray: I understood that the right hon. and gallant Member had received the information from people closely associated with the industry.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I certainly did so but I do not deny that my information may be inaccurate. I am speaking as a layman, and we must rely upon the technical people to instruct us. It is on this question of 30,000 recruits that the great proportion of our expansion of output depends. Now that the affairs of the coal industry are likely to touch each individual household as closely as they touched them in the year just gone through, it will

be necessary not only for those technically skilled but for those not technically skilled to discuss and put questions on the matter, because until the whole House understands it, it is impossible for those who are unskilled to do justice to these questions. I therefore ask the Minister, is the recruitment being absorbed and digested at a satisfactory rate, and would it be possible for it to be absorbed and digested more satisfactorily, if it were fed rather widely over a larger numbers of pits? My information is—I do not know whether it is completely accurate—that the present training schemes do not take into account all that has been learned since the training schemes began; and that other training schemes which have previously been in force have led to a more rapid or, at any rate, a smoother absorption of the labour?
For all that, for one reason or another the allocation of fuel is admittedly short for all classes of consumers. It is short for the domestic consumer and terribly short for the industrial consumer; and it is likely to lead to a considerable amount of under-employment from the fact that there is not enough raw material to employ the whole of the labour force of this country. That is to say that the bottleneck will not be one of manpower but a bottleneck of raw materials. The statement of the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon on the allocation of solid fuel, was therefore of very great importance. He said, as far as I understand it, that they were about to make an allocation to industry which should be at a level equal to the consumption during the summer of last year, less a "clawback" for building up stocks which were to reach three weeks supply by the winter. The "clawback" was of three weeks out of 20 weeks or even of two weeks allowing that the factories are still one week in hand—and that is a very optimistic assumption in the case of some factories which have been scraping the bottom of the bunkers to get fuel enough to carry on with—means a 10 to 15 per cent. cut for this summer.
I should like to know from the Minister if I am correct in that estimation. A 10 per cent. cut over last summer, still more a 15 per cent. cut over last summer, means a substantial reduction in at least one of the key materials for British industry, namely, steel. We were all interested to read the observation of the chairman of the Iron and Steel Board when reviewing the first six months of


the Board's work which was printed in ''The Times" of 29th April. He said there that the production of steel last year reached about 12,750,000 tons. If you make a cut of 10 per cent. that brings it down to 11,500,000 tons, and a 15 per cent. cut brings it down to about 10,750,000 tons. The estimate which he gave of the needs of industry was a demand for 15 million ingot tons; and he said that he was confident that British steel production this year would have exceeded 13 million tons, the raw material being available.
It is not necessary to do more than mention what we all know, that these shortages are reflecting themselves in industry in a hundred ways. One of the big Sunderland shipyard owners has just said that if the present rate of steel supplies continued, his yards would be cut to the extent of about half their normal capacity. His allocation for the first quarter of this year was 7,000 tons and for the second quarter only 3,900 tons. This would mean only about five ships a year instead of nine or 10, and his shipyard employing 3,500 men would have to pay off or put on half time about half that labour.
We have all had this morning protests from the cycle firms about the low allocations, and the result on the cycle industry of the low allocation of materials which has been made to them. The statement of the President of the Board of Trade will, no doubt, go some way to relieving this. We should like to know how much, and secondly from where does he draw the supplies from which he is to make these new allocations. He said that the situation had shown improvement since the statement he made during the Debate on the economic situation on 10th March. How much improvement? What is the figure of tonnage which he expects, and what diminution in the amount allotted to the build up of reserves? It would seem to me that it would require a figure of something like 4,500,000 new tons to enable him to do this. That is a lot under present conditions. From whence does he draw that 4,500,000? Does he draw it from a hopeful sense of increased output, or from the other aspect of his statement, which I was a little alarmed to hear, that owing to the fact that supplies at the level of the previous Cripps Plan, if I may so call it, would cause a great industrial dislocation, the Government had decided to take a risk.

We want to be very sure when we are taking a risk that we are not running into another situation such as we have experienced with such bitterness this winter. The Cripps two-thirds plan is, no doubt, a hardship to industry, but anything is better than a three-thirds cut. We are therefore most anxious to find out from the Minister what is the revised coal budget with reference to the statement made today by the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Blackburn: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman deal with the fact that if we are to have a shut-down at all, it would obviously be better to have it in the middle of the winter rather than in the middle of the summer? If we have to take a risk, it is a good thing to take it in the summer.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I would rather like to hear that from the Minister. I should have thought, if we were to have a shut-down, that a shut-down in the winter is not less injurious than a shutdown in the summer. I take it that the Minister approves the estimate of the President of the Board of Trade and that he is not gambling with the trade of this country. That would be a very serious gamble indeed. He is saying, I trust, in effect, "I am taking a risk which is what might be called a legitimate risk"; it is what the Minister of Fuel and Power said on another occasion, a risk with all things being equal and everything proceeding smoothly. We cannot see unforeseeable things, but I take it that the President of the Board of Trade at least is not saying, "If I am going to have a shut-down I would rather have it in mid-winter than in mid-summer."

Sir Arthur Salter: I think that the budget question is even more serious than has been indicated by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). I think that he mentioned a saving of 4,500,000 tons. Actual production up to the end of April has been 64 or 65 million tons and the President of the Board of Trade expects that in the next six months it will be 89 million tons. If the production in November and December is the same as hitherto we will find that we are more than 10 million tons short of the target of 200 million tons.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: What I was saying was simply this, that the President of the Board of Trade had increased his draft upon our coal output by 4½ million tons. The other coal budget given still remains. I was asking the Minister of Fuel and Power how he would balance his budget before this new draft and then in particular how he would balance this extra draft of 4½ million which seems to be envisaged. It is also interesting to note that the whole of this extra 4½ million has gone to industry. Complaint was made tonight—and it was justifiable complaint—from all sides of the House about the hardship to domestic consumers in the saving of 2½ million tons on the previous coal budget. Now this windfall of 4½ million tons has come along. The whole of it is to be given to industry and no portion of it is to be allotted to relieving the position of the domestic consumer.
The position of all consumers in this country is admittedly very acute. The only hope is in greater supplies. On that various factors are moveable. The numbers are moveable by recruitment; production is moveable by incentives; and then there is the third moveable factor which was touched on—and which it is only fair to touch on again—the miners' coal. On that it may be said that these are small figures and that these are allotments which none of us would wish to diminish. However, in these days even small savings are very necessary indeed. The small saving of 250,000 tons, which is to be saved by the cutting down of the railway services, is to be adhered to even although it is a small saving. The amount of miners' coal last year was running at 93,000 tons a week. This year the figures so far are: January, 108,000 tons; February, 100,000 tons; March, 113,000 tons. It is steady at two or three times that of the other domestic consumers. The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. T. J. Brooks) in an earlier Debate said that not 40 per cent. of the miners are getting the coal and that thousands of them have sold it back to the companies. If it is possible in some cases to do so, is it not possible in other cases also? No one suggests that the miners should be deprived of the coal. That is, after all, part of their wages, but it is not only part of their wages; it is a material of which the country stands in terrible need. Would it be possible for a greater proportion of

that coal to be purchased or re-purchased from the miners? It seems to be an avenue which ought to be explored.
When that argument on miners' coal was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Hudson) it was discounted by one hon. Member on the other side of the House who suggested that it should be applied to the case of agricultural workers. But the agricultural worker gets only 630 calories extra on account of his employment, which allocation is also given to other heavy workers. The man producing the food, the man on whom everything rests, gets a 25 per cent. allocation over and above the rank and file of the domestic consumers in this contry. If it were suggested by anyone that they should get twice as much food or three times as much, then I think it would be said by everybody that that was a position which certainly ought to be explored and which could not be allowed to stand even if the workers concerned sold a good deal of the food back. Everybody would say in a time when food was desperately short that efforts should be made to secure as much return into the general pool as was possible. I do not say that with any hostility to the miners but I do think that it is a line which ought to be investigated.

Mr. Murray: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) would probably be interested to know that what he is advocating in regard to the miners has been in operation in Durham for a long time, and that the miners along with their employers have done exactly as he has suggested.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was merely quoting the hon. Member for Rothwell.

Mr. Murray: That is Yorkshire.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I know, but he said that in 40 per cent. of the cases the miners were not getting the coal, which means that 60 per cent. of the cases were still ripe for exploration. I am merely speaking as a layman in this matter, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman would contend that it was sold back in all cases. Is that the contention that he is making?

Mr. Murray: This is rather involved. The reference which was made by the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Brooks) was in regard to one house when there


were, say, four miners working. There would be the coal of four miners but the coal of only one was needed for that home. The coal of the other three would be sold back to the owners, and that was what my hon. Friend was referring to when he spoke of the thousands who are not getting their coal although it is part of their wages.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That may be, but even that one household is drawing coal at a rate very much larger than any domestic householder in this country is drawing it. Of course the wet and dirty nature of the miners' work makes it absolutely essential that in many cases they should have extra coal. I am not denying that. I am trying to give an objective examination of this problem. But there are many cases amounting to perhaps 50 per cent. of the labour force where the pit-head baths deal with that problem. Hon. Members should recollect also that there are many other people with wet and dirty occupations. The agricultural workers are one class, and the people who are shepherding on the hills just now are in a dirty, wet, and extremely exposed occupation. The only extra there is for them is a 25 per cent. allowance over and above the normal rations. There is no extra fuel.
I think the Minister should let us know whether this question of the miners' coal can be further explored. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fuel and Power, replying to our earlier Debate, waived this aside rather airily as one tends to do at the end of a Debate when a Division is coming on. He said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport had said, in effect, to the miners, "Come on, boys, let us all produce more coal though we cannot give you as much house coal as you got before." He said that that would be a poor psychological approach to the miners and that we would not get anything that way. But that is exactly what my right hon. Friend did in the case of the agricultural industry. He said, "Come on, boys, produce 50 or 60 per cent. more than before." He also had nothing in his hand in the way of extra rations to give them. But it worked. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot waive it aside like that because, after all, the appeal made to the industry of agriculture is one which could also be made to the miners.

Mr. Tiffany: Is it not a fact that in that particular case it was the subsidy to the farmers which worked?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member is telescoping the business a good deal. Does he really think that in any industry it is possible to produce goods without the workers?

Mr. Tiffany: Certainly not.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It was the workers who achieved the extra production and they did it on a wage which, even after the improvement following the subsidy, was not any greater than that now being paid to the coalminers. I hope that the hon. Member is satisfied.

Mr. Tiffany: I shall have my chance later on.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The difficulty in which we are placed just now is that by some means or other an increase of production or, at present, a diminution in consumption, has to be obtained. In today's Debate we have been concentrating very closely on the decrease in consumption, but again I would say that by the Order which we have passed this afternoon—which is now the law of the land and which everybody will have to try to the utmost to observe—we have not rid ourselves of the necessity for fuel. After all, to say that one atom of carbon unites with two of oxygen producing carbon di-oxide with release of heat is equally true of the carbo-hydrates as of the hydrocarbons. It does not matter whether the energy is generated outside the body in a fire or inside the body burning up food. In fact the hon. Lady the junior Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) put it with much more force than I could in recommending the Electricity Bill to the House, when she said that the Bill presented
… possibilities … of a sound basis for going forward with the electrification of the home, the setting free of vast resources of women power in this country, and the saving of human energy and prevention of ill health …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th February, 1947: Vol. 432, c. 1634.]
These are all the things which the Minister asks the housewives of the country to diminish by 25 per cent. in the Order which has just been put on the Statute Book. But that does not mean that we can get along without those things. As has been said by the hon. Member for Sutton, Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton), they


will still have to be done, but by hand instead of by horse-power, as will the other things about which the hon. Lady the junior Member for Blackburn spoke. She said:
Electricity can be made to do a great many more things in the home than it has been allowed to do. Not only can it heat water and the rooms—
that was on 4th February, but of course we have changed all that—
but it can wash dashes and launder the clothes, peel the potatoes, clean the silver and do the hundred and one odd jobs which are the unavoidable necessity of female life."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 1631.]
Well, it can do 25 per cent. less of these things than it could do yesterday before the Order was made the law of the land. And in this the Minister is raiding a larder which has already been raided by his colleague the Minister of Food. After all, the food consumption of this country has already been reduced. The Minister of Food's own dietary figures show that the average intake in December, 1945, was 2,390 calories, and the average intake in December, 1946, 2,300, a cut of between 4 and 5 per cent. On this cut of internal energy is falling this additional reduction of outside energy—the strict rationing of the coal and coke, and the removal of space heating, that is to say, the body warming by means of a fire. All this, let it be noted, falls on a calory consumption which is already below what is given as normal for a householder in this country. The normal calory consumption is estimated at 2,550; in December, 1945, it was already down to 2,390, as I have said, and last December it had fallen still further to 2,330. On top of that falls this additional cut in domestic power which the Minister has put forward and defended today.
The Minister is fighting a campaign and he is entitled to support in so doing, but at present he is losing the campaign. He must expect criticism not only in this House but outside, in common with generals in other campaigns losing the battles to which they were sent. The present position is undoubtedly a gloomy one. A recent article in the American magazine "Life" drew a picture of Britain of almost unrelieved gloom, but it ended by saying, "You never can tell; these English are the damnedest people." They are, but they are working under great handicaps just now. They are worthy of

leadership and, I think, more leadership than they are now getting. Until they get it we have to say and go on saying to the Minister, "It is not enough."

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Henry White: The impression we have gained from hon. Members opposite is that we cannot expect from them the inspiration for the mining industry which it is obtaining from the Minister at the present time. What do we get from hon. Members opposite? The appeal that we should inspire the mining industry to produce more coal. But right away the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) complains in an oblique manner about the way the miners receive household coal under their system, and suggests that the amount per person in the coal mining industry has increased. The responsibility for that is not ours. It lies with those people who have governed this industry over many years, and for this reason. The average age level of those employed in the industry is that of those who received the coal, and the number of young boys who have entered the industry has not been sufficient to increase the ratio to that of the higher age level of those who receive this coal and who are the largest age group in the industry. Furthermore, it is suggested that the miner should forfeit his coal. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) suggested that this was a thing that should be investigated. In all honesty I think it is a thing that could be investigated, but those responsible would certainly not have an easy passage if the demand were made that the miner should forfeit his coal allowance and be reduced to the level of the ordinary household ration in this country.
I would remind hon. Members opposite that we have had some experience of arrangements whereby miners should forfeit their allowance. I remember that, in both the wars, when there were suggestions made that the allowance should be forfeited, the miners asked that some recognition should be given to them for handing back the coal. What did they find? Those who sat on wages and arbitration boards in our county, and those who were on the opposite side of the table when the owners were approached on many occasions to make


some allowance for the coal our men were prepared to forfeit, will remember that in some cases companies were prepared to pay for the coal, but in other cases they refused. This happened, too, in the county of Derby. The companies calculated that over the years the miners on an average had received nine tons per year—they were due for 12 tons—but because they received only nine tons before there was any recognition, the men had to have only eight tons. The owners would not shift from that position.
It is regrettable that on occasions such as these, when there is a shortage of fuel, we should have these things thrown back at us by those who ought to be facing up to the position. I resent the inferred allegations contained in some of the things which are being said. We have had Questions from Members opposite regarding slag in coal, the inference being that the miner is responsible. He is not responsible, but the people who are in charge of cleansing operations.

Sir A. Salter: Is it quite fair to say that when we ask Questions or call attention to the proportion of dirt in coal we are seeking to criticise the miner? Is it not that we are anxious to know to what extent the calorific value of coal is less than in the past?

Mr. White: There may be people with a really honest approach to these matters, but these Questions, in conjunction with the statements that are made, have an oblique reference to the miners. This week a Member, who is not present, writing in the local Press in my area, referred to the fact that the secretary of the Miners' Union was holding the country up for ransom, and stated that no good would be done until he was removed. I would point out that the miners have duly elected that individual by a democratic ballot, and that he is a good man for the job. He will look after the interests of the miners and of the country to a greater extent than some Members opposite are prepared to do. I suggest that these statements are doing no good to the mining industry. It must be remembered that bitterness and suspicion has been embodied in our very soul; but these things are gradually being removed, and there is growing up within the industry a new atmosphere and a better feeling. It must be remembered that any suggestion that the five-day week should

be put off for the time being only creates suspicion in the minds of the mining community, and if that is done we shall not get the production of coal as the days go by.
It is upsetting that these references should be made when there is such need for recruitment. It is regrettable that the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities should show his lack of knowledge on how the position works in regard to trainees. If he had known the industry, he would have realised that supervision and training are two separate things. It takes one man to look after one trainee, and it is not until a man has been trained up to a certain point that he reaches the coalface.
I want to tell the Minister some of the things the mining community are talking about in regard to the National Coal Board and the nationalisation of the industry. There is a feeling that too many people who were investigation officers under the Ministry of Fuel and Power have been transferred to other posts in the new set up and they ought not to be there. I should like the Minister to examine that to see whether it is so or not. Another small point—and it is a very small point—is the reclamation of coal from the waste tips. I think it would give as much output per man as in the case of an ordinary pit. I do not know whether the House is aware of it or not, but up and down the country there are collieries where it is done, and if it were made universal—wherever it is possible and safe, and I make that reservation because there are certain places that are not safe—it would help, if only in small measure, to make up the shortage of coal. Would it not perhaps be possible to engage some of those people whom the industry cannot take on at the present time on the reclamation of coal from the tips? I know of at least two collieries where it is done, and if two men could average something like three tons each per day, spread over the country it would be worth while.
There is one other matter before I sit clown, and that is to urge upon the Minister the earnest desire of those who have suffered some disability, and may have been refused employment, to get back into the industry. Those of us who have worked in the industry almost all our lives are aware that many people suffer certain disabilities or small injuries, as a result


of which they are eventually refused employment because they have in some degree received compensation. Some of them could be put on to jobs which would release others for coal face work. I urge the Minister to look at these two small points. I trust that he will refute any suggestion which may be made in any quarter that the shortening of the miners' working week should be postponed. That would have the effect of making the mining community of this country suspicious.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Spearman: We discussed in an earlier Debate today the hardships that will fall upon the domestic consumer, and I sympathise very much with them, particularly with the older ones who find it more difficult to keep warm, and those who live in the North of England, where we pay for our healthier and more bracing air with a colder climate.

Mr. Scollan: What about Scotland?

Mr. Spearman: I am including Scotland. I suggest that these obvious and immediate inconveniences are as nothing to the hardships that this nation will suffer unless we can increase production so as to buy those vital raw materials and foods which we cannot produce ourselves. At the present time I do not believe that ordinary men in the street realise quite how serious the situation is, because after all most of them have at least as much money in their pocket, as they had before the war and are able to buy about as much. I do not think they realise that that is because we have at the moment a million slaves working for us, as it were; that is what we get from the American loan. Roughly speaking, I think we are spending abroad round about £1,500 million, and we are producing exports to the value of about £900 or £1,000 million. The gap is being filled by the loan from America, which will not last much more than, say, a year or 18 months. Quite suddenly, therefore, we shall find ourselves in a most drastically different position, when it will not be a question of inconvenience, but almost or quite of starvation. May I quote what was written six months ago by the former head of the Cabinet Economic Secretariat, who

seemed to have grasped the calamity of the situation to a degree to which the Government unfortunately did not:
The coal shortage dominates everything. There has been no threat to our economic position comparable to this danger since the worst days of the U-Boats. If we do not surmount it, we shall assuredly run into a colossal disaster.
The Government have talked about a target of 200 million tons, and the T.U.C. have said that it ought to be revised to 220 million tons. I am suggesting that that has unintentionally misled people into thinking, with some complacency, that we shall get at any rate about 200 million tons, which will be uncomfortable but not disastrous. I do not pretend to be an expert on coal production, but I have seen and heard no evidence to assure me that we shall very much exceed 180 million tons; we shall have disaster if that is to be the production, unless far more vigorous steps are taken; there will be an enormous falling-off in the amount of steel produced, and if we have inadequate steel, inadequate power and a shortage of coal there is no hope of expanding production, and without that we shall not be able to buy what we need to live.
The hon. Member for West Derby (Mi. C. White) commented, as hon. Members on that side sometimes do, on abuses in the mines in the past. That is as may be, but may I press this point upon them: after all, we here are not historians; our job is the present and the future. The Government have a very bad record in this respect. I am quite sure that when they came into office it was made very clear to them how desperately grave the coal situation was; and I want to ask what steps were taken to recruit for the mines. I give all credit for what has been done in the last few months, but why was it not done 18 months ago? What steps were taken to reduce consumption at that time? I believe that if even a year ago 100,000 workers had been brought in from abroad the situation might have been saved. That would have been a difficult decision to take from the point of view of the Government, but having failed to take it, if last September they had taken steps to allocate coal, to cut down supplies and to maintain stocks, the position would now have been less serious—though again that would have been very unpopular.
I would like to stress the difference between their activities and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) when he was in charge during the war. Every sort of step was taken then to maintain stocks at 12 million tons; but I believe that last September the Government were so confident of an increase, in production in January that they overlooked the fact that no increase in production then would make possible proper distribution unless there were adequate stocks in October. I would like to suggest that coal should be bought from America. I have just been in the States and I am very impressed at how strongly they feel, in their own enlightened self-interest, that the economy of this country must be preserved—whatever they may have thought in the past. They feel that they do depend upon the preservation of Europe, and that we are the pivot of that. I believe they would go very far out of their way if it were made sufficiently clear to them how vital it was to our very existence. Just in order to preserve our comforts, I do not think that they are prepared to sacrifice their own coal, and we cannot ask them to cut off supplies to Europe, which is already suffering very much through our own failure to supply them. A very small percentage of coal consumed in America imported into this country would make all the difference to us. The Americans must be shown how vital the coal was, not so much for the saving of our comforts but for the saving of our economy; then, I believe, they would be ready to make sacrifices. I would make the concrete suggestion that the President of the Board of Trade, who is perhaps more acceptable in the United States than are some of his colleagues should go over there and put over, with all the force he can, how desperately we need coal for the preservation of our economy. Many pilgrimages have gone to America on subjects of less importance than this.
I would ask, secondly, that there should be a concentration of all the available coal to industries where the smallest amount of coal will produce the greatest amount of essential production for export or for consumption here. The Government have got us into such a mess that they have now to be ruthless. They have to give up all idea of being kind and fair. They have to concentrate all the coal there is, and it is much too little, where

it will produce the most result. Is there any evidence that there is a planning mechanism which can scientifically weigh up the alternatives and can assess where coal will produce the most results, and which can plan between different Government Departments. We all know that every Government Department tries to get what it wants for itself, that the Department which shouts most loudly gets the most. We want a planning mechanism that will deal with that situation. We are suffering from a hit-or-miss policy. I imagine that the Government have had so many misses lately that they think that on the law of averages they must get a hit soon.
I have tried to put forward four points: That the situation is far more grave now than the country realises; that the worst service the Government can do us is to be complacent; that the Government should, at all costs, go out to find a supply of coal from abroad; and that they should concentrate the coal we have where it will produce the most results.
I read somewhere that during the time when Pitt was Prime Minister news was received in this House of a very great victory. His bitter enemy, Charles James Fox, got up and said that the victory conferred so much advantage to the nation that it was worth having, even at the price of improving the prestige of the Prime Minister. I would suggest that the converse is true today. The failure to plan conditions under which production can expand mean such suffering to our people that, even though it brings the collapse of the Socialist Government, that is a price that we cannot afford to pay.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Sylvester: In claiming the indulgence of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would tell hon. Members that as recently as February of this year I had been working underground for more than 35 years. I am probably the only representative of a mining constituency who has worked underground since the mines came into the ownership of the nation. Many observations have been made upon the subject of the shortage of manpower. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) said that we could not go back into the past. I entirely agree with him, but, nevertheless, we have long and bitter memories, and a long time will be taken


to wipe them out. They are memories of the mismanagement of the mines, and of the promises past Governments made to us from the end of the 1914–18 war. Only with the advent of the present Labour Government did we who were then working in the mines fully realise that at last a Government was in power which would implement some of the promises which had been made to the miners of this country. One right hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned that recruits were now coming into the mines daily and said he was pleased that it was so. We are all pleased about it, but those recruits did not start to come into the mines until after January of this year. The recruits feel, especially the older men who had left the mine and have now returned, that there is now no longer that fear of unemployment which existed before and, worse than that, the victimisation which had been carried on for many years. Not until the mines became the property of the nation to be run by the National Coal Board did the older men decide to return to the mines.
Another subject to which reference has been made is the deterioration of machinery. It can truthfully be said that very little has been done to the machinery in the mines during the last 10 years. Before coming into this House I was a member of a pit production committee. We used to come out of the pit at about two o'clock, get a bath and then sit as a pit production committee until half-past four or five. Often we had a report that there had been a breakdown and that the men had to come out as there were no tubs. When we asked the deputy or the responsible official for the reason, we were often told that the engine had broken down. He would go so far as to say that the engine was done for and needed to be replaced. This kind of incident was not only typical of one pit but of many. During Question time an hon. Member referred to dirt in the coal. The same conditions apply there. I question whether many collieries have washing machinery. In the area where I live we have no washery plant in operation. These facts are illustrative of how the industry has been run.
Irrespective of what critics of the Minister of Fuel and Power may say about him, I am sure the miners are satisfied that at last someone is in charge of the Department who will give the miners a

square deal. They are satisfied that the Minister will not go back on his word. As was said by one of my hon. Friends, it would have been one of the worst things that could have happened if we had gone away from the promise of the five-day week. I feel that, probably, in the first week or two after its introduction, there may be a slight reduction in output, but when the industry gets settled down to the five-day week, I am nearly confident that we shall get greater output. It will be possible in the weekends to do necessary repairs which it is not possible to do at present. With six shifts of work, it has not been possible to get repairs done. Conditions vary in every pit in every district. When one talks about mining, one is not talking about an industry such as bricklaying, where in the building of a house in London or Yorkshire similar things apply. In mining, conditions vary in every county, in every area, and even in every pit, from one side to the other. We have got to be cognisant of these things.
I want to make one or two helpful criticisms and suggestions. I suggest that the Minister makes an immediate survey with the idea of modernising methods of production. I suggest that because, even in 1947, I know of pits of three feet six seams where the method of production is throwing coal hack eight yards until there is a, heap, and then putting it into a tub. Every time a man fills a ton of coal, he has to handle two tons. Did ever anyone know of anything so ridiculous? It is a relic of the system that has been carried on for years, and it is a definite wastage of manpower. By modern mechanisation the collier's work would be lightened, and it would be possible to get two tons for every ton produced now. I suggest also that the Minister should ask the Department responsible to get an early priority for this machinery, and not leave it to some of the colliery managers to introduce these measures in a very leisurely fashion, as has been done in the past. If we can get modern improvements by the end of the autumn, we shall be on the high road, and we should be able to exceed the target of 200 million tons that has been set.

8.3 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I wish to offer to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Sylvester), on


behalf of his colleagues and my colleagues, as well as myself, our warm congratulations on the very honest, sincere and well-informed speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Member told us that he has lately transferred his services from the State to the people. I assure him that we are happy in that change, as we have him sitting on these Benches instead of enduring the many discomforts to which a miner's life is subjected. We hope to hear many more similarly well-informed speeches on a subject which he obviously knows so intimately. I would like also to refer to another speech of a similar character that was made by an hon. Member opposite, a speech that was very honest and well informed, and to say that any comment I may make will not be in criticism, because the first time I went down a pit I decided that I would give the miners anything that would make their lives happier, more contented, and sweeter. I hope the National Coal Board will succeed where the private owners failed.
A friend of mine told me the other day that he was offered 10 tons of coal out of a miner's allocation. I do not criticise the miner; he has every right to that coal, since, as one hon. Member has said, it is part of the miner's wages. The interesting thing is that my friend, who wanted to keep within the law, rang up the local fuel overseer and asked whether it would be all right, and the fuel overseer refused to permit the sale. If the coal is really part of the wages of a miner, why should the fuel overseer interfere with the disposition of the man's wages? I would like the Minister to answer that question.
I wish to deal not only with the ban that has been threatened by the Minister in the Order that we have recently discussed, but also with the under-production of coal which has led to the imposition of that ban, for obviously, if there were an adequate production of coal, no restrictions would be necessary. As to the ban, I find it very difficult to discover any arguments that have not already been used against this well-nigh inexplicable decision of the Minister. In studying the Order, I was reminded of two well-known and platitudinous proverbs. One was that those whom the gods intend to destroy, they first make mad. That is, obviously, the only explanation of this Order and

the decision behind it. With regard to the other proverb, we are so often reminded of the last straw that breaks the camel's back that we cease to regard the straw as having any real significance. What I would like the Minister to understand—for I can only imagine that the Minister is solely responsible for this, as I cannot believe the Cabinet would be willing accessories to the well-nigh sadistic design that it discloses—is that this is certainly no lightweight straw that he is imposing, but an almost intolerable burden. One hon. Member after another has said that the burden will fall chiefly upon these wonderful women of ours. That is true, for it is not on the back of the camel, which is usually well covered, that it will fall, but on the worn, wasted, weary backs of the housewives.
Sometimes I think we do less than justice to these splendid women when we refer to them, though occasionally they are given a pompous pat on the back. Many hon. Members opposite, and many of my hon. Friends, were away from home so much during the war that they do not see what was obvious to others—the exacting, wearisome routine, day after day, of getting breakfast for the husband, getting breakfast for the children, getting the children to school, going out to do the shopping, with their heavy net bags and on tired feet, getting dinner in the middle of the day, and so on with the usual aching routine until the evening. The one comfort that these women had was that at the end of this devastating day they were able to come back to a warm home and to have a few minutes of warm relaxation before going to get a little bit of rest in bed. The war over, these people will be in the same old position, except that this time they will have this savage restriction imposed on their comfort, and will have nothing to look forward to at the end of the day—except, possibly, they have central heating—but the bitter cold, which is our usual summer in this country
Now I want to consider the reason which apparently justified the Minister imposing these restrictions. It has been stated, both by himself and by oher hon. Members, that he intends and expects to save 2,500,000 tons. That, of course, means five months of misery in the home, and six months of under-production in the factory.

Mr. John Lewis: The proposed saving of 2,500,000 tons is only in respect of domestic consumption, not industrial consumption.

Sir T. Moore: I accept the correction but when one sees the devastating effects of this Government, one is sometimes apt to make them even more devastating in one's argument, though I submit that my argument is effective enough without the reference to under-production in the factories. The figure has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, but in my analysis, this would represent just under four days' production of the estimated annual output of the mines of this country The Minister himself has said that the miners are doing magnificently. He also mentioned, or it was stated in the Press the other day, that new entrants to the industry are coming in at the rate of, approximately, 400 a week. If that is true why is there this difficulty of overcoming four days' production?
Then we are told that 9,000,000 tons of coal were exported last year. Admittedly, a. lot of that was bunker coal, and can be explained as such. Then, again, we are informed that we are now sending coal to Eire. That, of course, is probably in return for beef on the hoof. But I do not think that either of those excuses can possibly justify the infliction of the fantastic hardship which this year is going to be imposed on the people of this country. There is one question which the women of our country are specially asking. I have heard it asked half a dozen times a day during the past week. They ask, Why is it that before and during the war we had coal for export, coal for the factories producing goods for export, coal for gas, coal for our generating plants, and coal to burn, even recklessly, at times? Why is it that today we are in the position which has been described by so many hon. Members that we have none of any of these things? All I ask is, as I said a second ago, if the miners are doing so magnificently—and no doubt they are; I have many miner friends, and have a great respect for them—and if there are all these entrants trooping to the pits, how is it, when all our war factories have been transferred, or are in process of being transferred, to civilian use, we are in the position of being short of this commodity vital to our national economy?

Mr. J. Lewis: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman ever heard of the process known as "training"?

Sir T. Moore: I have. That is why I am wondering why the Minister has not accepted the help of the many trained Polish miners who are at our disposal, and who would be delighted to work in our mines.

Mr. J. Lewis: Haw many?

Sir T. Moore: That is for the Minister, and not for me to say. I am told that there are 30,000 or 40,000 of them.
There are two further points on which I should like to get an answer from the Minister. The first is, How is it that he can promise that there will be no snoopers to ensure that the law-abiding people observe his ban? If there are to be no snoopers, how is the Minister going to find out the law-breakers? The only solution to that question that I can find is that the officials of local authorities will be mobilised to examine the gas meters, and that they, in turn, will report to the Minister. They, of course, will be simply snoopers, and very undesirable snoopers, under another guise. Then, of course, I cannot understand why these honest, law-abiding people, who, at the 'Minister's own request, gave up their coal fires over a year ago and installed electric fires at the instance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who gave a direct encouragement to that end by taking off the Purchase Tax, are now to be deprived of any heat whatever. It seems to me to be a very poor return for the genuine effort made by them to help the country, when, according to the Minister and other national spokesmen, the country was in grave danger.
I only wish to ask one more question. How can the Minister justify asking the housewife to make a voluntary cut of 25 per cent. in her consumption of last year? It simply means that the housekeeper who was genuinely endeavouring to assist the country by cutting down her consumption, is now to be penalised again, whereas the thriftless and the thoughtless are to be let off. The whole attitude of the Minister in this scheme, promoted by him and pronounced by him, sounds to me like "a tale told by an idiot." I would warn the Government that the country will not tolerate being governed by idiots for very much longer.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. McAllister: I was interested to hear that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) thought that this story was "a tale told by an idiot." I can only assure him that his speech sounded to me like the rest of that quotation:
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
In spite of that, I would like to associate myself with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Sylvester) on his maiden speech. I wish, too, that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs had taken his cue from the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman), who delivered a speech which was moderate, constructive and helpful. He said that the people in America were willing to help this country in its fuel difficulties because they believed in Great Britain, and because they believed, whatever they thought of our Government, that this country was a country worth saving. I would have thought that that would have been the view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and of his hon. Friends. I would also have thought that it was the view of British and Scottish industrialists.

Sir T. Moore: The question, "Why cannot we import that one per cent. of our requirements," has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman). That is why I did not refer to it.

Mr. McAllister: I do not want to go into the particular argument put forward by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby because that is for the Minister to answer and not for me. What I was trying to get at was the spirit in which the hon. Member for Scarborough put forward the suggestion. I thought it was put forward in the right spirit and in the right way. Industrialists might very well show the same attitude.
I have intervened in this Debate because a substantial group of Scottish industrialists are not showing any such similar attitude. Scottish iron and steel trade employers have issued an intimation that all Scottish steelworks will be closed down next week, and the reason they give for this lockout—because that is what it is, a lockout unprecedented in the whole history of the Scottish steel industry—is that the

miners of Scotland are to enjoy two days' statutory holiday on Monday and-Tuesday of next week and that, consequently, fuel will not be available for the steel industry. But these statutory holidays apply not only to Scotland, but to England and Wales as well. Scotland represents one-eighth of the steel industry of the United Kingdom. If there were anything in the argument put forward by the Scottish steel owners, surely the other seven-eighths would be closing down as well? On the contrary, nothing of the sort. The English and Welsh steel works will be working all the time next week, but the Scottish steel works are to be closed down because this group of industrialists, who place their political interest before the interest of the whole nation, are trying to sabotage not only the Labour Government but the whole economic future of this country, and are attempting to strike a paralysing blow, for propaganda purposes, at the people of the United Kingdom.
Scotland, I think the Minister will agree, exports coal. We are probably the only coal exporting country in Europe today. We export coal to England and Wales. In spite of the fact that we produce more coal than we need for our own purposes, the Scottish steel owners have the audacity to say that there is not enough coal for them to carry on because the miners have, by statute, the right to two days' spring holiday. We have had a good deal of comment in the Press and, not unnaturally, chiefly in the Scottish Press, on the conduct of a group of Scottish dockers in the last few weeks. There have been suggestions that they have not been playing fair with the nation. I would be the last to deny that unofficial strikes and stoppages of any kind are not helpful to the national recovery at the present time. But these Scottish iron and steel owners are endeavouring to sabotage the nation on a scale which no section of the working class has ever threatened or contemplated putting into effect.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: What about the general strike? I am not saying whose fault it was, but what about it?

Mr. McAllister: I do not intend to pursue that matter, except to say that if the hon. Member can remember anything about the general strike, he will remember that it arose because this nation was not doing' its duty by the British miners. I am glad


to see the Secretary of State for Scotland is in his place, because this affects the whole life of Scotland. It affects the future of the housing policy of Scotland and the shipping industry. There is not an industry in Scotland which will not feel repercussions as a result of this monstrous conduct on the part of the Scottish steel owners. I appeal to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for Scotland to get in touch with the Minister of Supply, and immediately carry out a thoroughgoing investigation into the conduct of the Scottish steel industry. I want them to look into the coal stocks position, because I know that at this moment in the Lanarkshire steel works there are enormous stocks of coal, and there is not a vestige of justification or excuse for this threat to the life of Scotland and to the economic recovery of Great Britain.

8.26 p.m.

Major Lloyd George: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister), except to comment very briefly on one or two things he said. I was surprised to hear him say that Scotland is a coal exporting country to Wales, among other places. I had an idea that we in Wales had done a great deal, especially during the war, to transfer out of the country what used to be an export trade, and send it into England in very large tonnages. The other point on which I want to comment is his reference to enormous stocks of coal in, some of the steel works in Lanark. If that is so, it points to an extraordinary piece of maldistribution of stocks, because the stocks in the country as a whole do not warrant any particular industry having enormous stocks. Steelworks do not carry large stocks anyway and, therefore, I assume that it must mean maldistribution of some sort.

Mr. McAllister: I hate to disturb any Celtic amity between Wales and Scotland, and I withdraw my remarks about the export of coal from Scotland to Wales. With regard to coal stocks, I cart assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in Lanarkshire there are at present 2,000 tons of coal, which represents a large enough margin to keep them going without any reference to the miners 'two days' holiday.

Major Lloyd George: I wondered what the hon. Gentleman meant by "enor-

mous." If the stocks are enormous, it must mean maldistribution.
I do not propose to detain the House very long, because we have not a great deal of time. What I have to say will be said very briefly. This is one of many Debates we have had on coal, not unnaturally, in the last few months, and I want to express the hope that, as a result of this discussion tonight, we shall know where we are, because nobody can say that the average person in this country has a very clear picture of what the position is as regards coal. That is largely due to the contradictory statements which have been made, and actions which have been taken, from time to time, by Members of His Majesty's Government. They are still continuing. We were told by the Minister himself not so long ago, which was quite true, that the situation was a very grave one. With that we all agree. We then read and hear that output is improving. We see in the Press references to targets having been exceeded. One day a ban is imposed on central heating, and in a few days it is removed. It is not surprising, therefore, that the people of this country are in some doubt as to the actual position. We have heard from the President of the Board of Trade of an increased allocation to industry. Naturally, the sooner industry gets back to its full allocation the better. That statement was made before the end of the coal winter, before the time when stocks normally begin to accumulate, and before anybody knows what the effect of the five-day week will be. I suggest those three things which I have mentioned have a great bearing upon the coal position. We cannot possibly tell at this juncture how the stocking is going—not normally, at any rate. It is very difficult to say what will be the effect of the five-day week.
In the last Debate we had it was quite obvious from the estimate put forward by, I think, the President of the Board of Trade, that the Government did anticipate a certain drop in output. Obviously, it is impossible for the Minister to give any exact indication what the drop or the increase will be, because only actual experience will show. But it does seem to me to show a complete lack of appreciation of the position when, knowing none of those things to which I have referred, it is stated that the allocation to certain industries is to be increased.


There is another aspect in regard to allocation which must not be lost sight of. The Parliamentary Secretary said they hoped to save 2½ million tons this summer from coal utilised in gas and electricity for domestic consumption. What calculation, if any, has been made as to the increased electricity consumed as a result of a greater allocation of coal to industry? We all know of cases where very considerable increases in electrical consumption took place with a very small increase in the allocation of coal. The 2½ million tons which is to be saved is, I think I am right in saying, the biggest item of the lot; the figure for the railways is half a million, and so on. That is to be taken from the domestic consumer. Let us look at how that is to be taken. As far as I can understand the Order, the saving is to be confined to space heating with gas and electricity.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): Plus the 25 per cent. voluntary cut.

Major Lloyd George: Oh, yes. But the actual amount consumed in space heating in normal summer months is not a very heavy item in our consumption. Only fires are specified in the Order. Cooking, water heating and washing—all fairly substantial items—are not to be touched, and, obviously, could not be touched. We have an Order which many hon. Members have said is incapable, or at least extremely difficult, of enforcement. I think that is right. I am sorry that today the Parliamentary Secretary made a remark which, quite frankly, I think is a little unworthy of him, when he suggested that there were people opposed to this Government who were deliberately wasting fuel in order to upset the whole of the economic situation. There may he some of that type about, but I would put this to the Parliamentary Secretary. He made the statement that he had heard that. Why did not he take action and prosecute? Has the Waste of Fuel Order been repealed? I understand it is still an offence—it certainly was an offence—to waste fuel. Instead of making that statement here this afternoon, the hon. Gentleman would have been far better advised to take some action, which he is entitled to take, under Orders which are still in existence.
Reference was also made to certain appliances. True, many people have electric fires and gas fires as opposed to those who use only solid fuel. But the Government themselves have encouraged that unfairness. Everybody knew, long before the war finished, that there was a shortage of generating plant for electricity, and that there was a shortage of generating plant for gas. Yet I believe something like four times the number of electrical appliances have been made since the end of the war. Why, therefore, should it be unfair? Surely, people who, thinking they were doing a service to the country by installing in their houses the most efficient of fuel burning appliances, are not to be criticised on that account? The most inefficient form of heating is the open fire. Housing estates are being put up today, in regard to which the more economical use of fuel appliances has been studied. The Ministry has set up committees to look into these things. Why, therefore, should it be regarded as unfair because somebody has had the intelligence to have a labour saving fuel appliance installed in his house? I doubt, myself, whether the saving of the domestic consumer will be anything approaching 2½ million tons.
What is the alternative, leaving out the question of production, on which I do not propose to touch this afternoon? One alternative, I suggest, is that the Minister should make the position clear. The position is not clear today to the ordinary domestic consumer. How many people are there in the country today amongst the domestic consumers who really believe that the Order issued in February is still in existence? After 7th February we had an Order which prohibited the use of electricity between 9 a.m. and 12 noon, and 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. How many domestic consumers still think that Order is still in operation? How can they be blamed when we get an Order saying that the ban on space heating is to be relaxed, having been banned before? I think the Minister owes 'it to the country to make perfectly clear to the domestic consumer, once more, the position with regard to fuel burning in his house, because he does not know it at the present time. Where is the publicity today? Where is the appeal to the domestic consumer? Where is it?

Mr. Hobson: On the hoardings.

Major Lloyd George: When we had a similar position, not as serious but at any rate as big a gap in production consumption in 1942, the B.B.C. was brought in—

Mr. Hobson: It is now.

Major Lloyd George: But nothing like to the same extent. I beg the hon. Gentleman to believe me—and I am not talking without knowledge of this matter—there are vast numbers of people in this country today who do not know what the position is with regard to cutting off and switching on. A tremendous campaign was waged in 1942; exhibitions were held; demonstrations were given to the housewife how to make less go a little further. Has that been dropped altogether? It certainly has not caught the public eye. There is another matter, which has not been mentioned by any speaker today. What about industrial economies? Tremendous economies could be made in industry today. During the war bodies known as fuel efficiency committees were set up in every region of this country: 650 highly skilled engineers volunteered their services, and formed themselves into panels. Under the instructions of experts from my Ministry at that time they visited 11,000 factories. Those 11,000 factories consumed, between them, 29 million tons of coal a year. Within a year of the new Ministry of Fuel being formed three million tons had been saved in those 11,000 factories. Of course, they had to be followed up. The Minister seems to find that amusing.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): I find it very amusing.

Major Lloyd George: What is being done today?

Mr. Shinwell: I will tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Major Lloyd George: That is what the Minister is here for, and that is what I am here td ask. I see very little evidence of a campaign on the domestic side. I can read the papers as well as anybody else, and there is no real campaign for domestic economy going on in this country today. Half the people do not know what the Orders are. As far as industrial efficiency is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman is in a far better position now than we were during the war; he can at least get the instruments to a greater

extent, without which real efficiency is not possible. I ask the Minister this straight question: What has happened to the fuel efficiency committees that were set up during the war? What are they doing in the way of visiting factories and encouraging the better use of fuel? What are they doing now in the way of following that up? Visiting a factory is one thing, but it is even more important that those visits should be followed by others to see whether the advice given is carried out. Voluntary saving as a result of one campaign in 1942 resulted in a saving of ix million tons of fuel. That was entirely done by voluntary appeal—but it was done as if we meant it; and whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, there is no sign that I can see that they are really getting down to the campaign of trying to persuade people to do it voluntarily—although they have this Order, which, however, as everybody knows, cannot be enforced.
One word about miners' coal. A lot has been said about it already. The average amount of miners' coal today, including that sold back, is about seven tons per head—not per family, but seven tons per annum per head. There are 700,000 miners and that means 4,900,000 tons of coal. Has the Minister made, or does he intend to make, a further appeal on miners' coal? It is one that he could make perfectly well, because he is making severe demands on other sections of the community, and there is no reason why, at a time when there are fewer miners, they should be getting more coal than before the war. They are actually getting more coal than they did before the war.
I am not happy about the position at the present time. I am not happy about the announcement made today. I want the Government of this country to face the facts as they are now. The first priority for coal in this country today is stock building. To get the stocks up to the minimum, which the Minister has said is 15 million tons—and it is the minimum, believe me—we have to put about 10 million tons into stock this summer. That is a rate vastly in excess of anything this country has ever done before—vastly in excess: very nearly double.
I suggest to the Minister that it would be better for this country to stay as we were at the end of the crisis, everybody knowing where we are, despite the loss it


would entail, than to take any risk of a repetition next winter of the same thing that we suffered this last winter. Despite all the difficulties, despite the loss, which would be grievous, I think it would be better to face the fact that we have not got the coal. I am not going into the reason for that; we have done it before and will do it again. But it would be better to face the fact that the coal is not there. We have cut our economy to suit that position. If stock building is the big thing for next winter, as I believe it to be, everything should be- concentrated on that. The result of that would be, I suggest, that when winter starts the industrialists of this country would not be living from week to week as they are now. According to the Parliamentary Secretary, as fuel goes up or down, so they get greater or lesser allocations. How anyone plans industry on that basis I have yet to learn. But they would, at least, have stocks at the beginning giving a reasonable margin of safety. Industrialists could then plan. In the long run it would be to the great advantage of this country. I do ask the Government, in conclusion, to do this: I beg of them to make up their mind what they are really going to do, and, having produced a plan, for heaven's sake, let them stick to it.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Timmons: I do not intend to deal with the saving side but with the production side of the problem. In response to the oration of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), and since he referred to the fuel deficiencies and the savings he tried to effect, I will tell him that the serious allegations that have been made about deliberate waste are true. I know of a big industrial concern which kept a fuel officer whose job it was to save fuel throughout the works. But when the fuel crisis came they dismissed the officer and, throughout every department, used coal indiscriminately. That is an example of the efforts of people to sabotage the fuel saving campaign and to embarrass the Minister. A stranger coming from another land into this place and listening to the attacks made on the Government about this fuel position would think it was something which had just arisen. But it has not. This is a heritage that has been handed on. It was only

in January this year that the National Coal Board took over the industry. Before that, the Government had no power to reorganise the industry.
I want to put in a word for my own county of Lanarkshire, in which my right hon. Friend said sometime ago the coalfield was dying. But there are vast resources of coal in Lanarkshire—vast resources which are still to be extracted. I want to put this word to my right hon. Friend the Minister. There is coal lying under water which can easily be worked. Schemes for that can be prepared. I can produce a scheme for him. We have vast areas of coal which can be dewatered, and not at the cost of 2S. 6d. a ton. I can show him areas where it was contemplated to put down new pits. There are still ample opportunities for extracting coal in Lanarkshire. There is this point, most important of all—that Lanarkshire made a big contribution to the mining industry in the way of manpower. We find that since 1940 some 15,000 miners left the industry and went to other industries inside Lanarkshire alone. These men are between the ages of 35 and 45.
What is happening? When the recruiting campaign was set a-going I was rather interested in the appeal that was made to these men to go back to the industry. The Lanarkshire men were willing to go back to the industry. An employment exchange manager told me they have more men than they can place. That is the situation inside Lanarkshire, and it is still the biggest coal producing area in the whole of Scotland. We cannot uproot the miners in Lanarkshire to send them to Fife or the Lothians. Quite a number of the younger men who went to Fife or the Lothians to work had to come back because there is not housing accommodation for them there. In the long-term policy I think that the Regional Coal Board, the National Coal Board and the Minister ought to pay more serious attention to future developments inside Lanarkshire, not only to avoid losing manpower, but in order to make new sinkings.
There is another problem we have in Lanarkshire. I want to draw the Minister's attention to this. There are many small mines, particularly in my own Division. These small mines are not working to capacity. They are working under licence, but they are not


conforming to the conditions that prevail in the industry. They are not developing to the extent of producing the amount of coal which they could produce. I know, in my own area, of a number of small mines which could develop and employ far more men than they do employ at present, but they simply refuse to do that. At the same time, I see men going and coming from employment exchanges who cannot get an opportunity of finding work in the mines. I ask the Minister if he will pay attention to this matter and ensure that these small mines which are working under licence conform to the conditions that prevail in the mining industry in the much larger pits.
Another question with which I am concerned is that of the five-day working week. As one who spent many years working a five-day week in the mining industry, I can say that there was a period when, in Scotland, every county had its own working week. Lanarkshire, however, maintained a five-day week, while Fife and Stirlingshire worked 11 days a fortnight, and Ayrshire 12 days a fortnight. During the whole of that period, wages and conditions were determined by the amount of production. The most remarkable thing was. that during that period, output per man-shift was much higher, and the aggregate far higher, for weekly production than in any other part of the coalfields. As one who knows the practical and technical difficulties and problems of mining, I say that I have no doubt that we shall lose nothing by the acceptance of the five-day week. What we get at the moment is a six-day disorganised week. Under the conditions imposed in the five-day week, the country is safeguarded to this extent—that we shall get an organised five-day working week in which we shall get full production throughout the whole week. I know that there are adjustments that can be made, and the miners Members in this House know that, by means of certain adjustments over a period of five days, it is possible to compensate for the loss of the Saturday. I have no doubt that the five-day working week will work out very satisfactorily.
We are told that there is a new spirit manifesting itself in the industry at the present time. I have said here in this House, during the last Debate we had on

this subject, that I had faith in the miners, and I still have faith in the miners. Certain adjustments require to be made and these will be made as time goes on. We cannot expect the miners to produce a psychological change overnight. The time will come along when they will not allow anything to stand in the way of production. An hon. Member said to me tonight that the miners would never get the coal. He was offering me a £100 bet that the miners would never get the 200 million tons of coal this year. I offered to take him on, and then he wanted odds. Nevertheless, I am quite confident that the miners will get that 200 million tons of coal this year.
There is just one other point i want to make. I must refer to the position to which reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister). It concerns the development areas. New industries are being built up in these areas. They cannot start production, because they cannot get steel. The steel firms say that they cannot produce the steel because they cannot get coal. We cannot afford to carry 80,000 to 100,000 unemployed in Scotland because we are sending coal to England for her factories. I do not know to what extent our coal is being exported from Scotland to England but I want to say to the Government, and particularly to the Secretary of State for Scotland, that it must be stopped. We must ensure that we have the coal with which to build up a policy of full employment in Scotland.

8.56 p.m.

Major Peter Roberts: I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but I wish to put a few points to the Parliamentary Secretary. First, I want to refer to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman), who spoke of the difficulties we should have in future because of the lesser output of industry through the shortage of coal. There is an answer to this problem, a short-term answer, and it is that we should get coal from abroad. The Minister said, in our last Debate, that there was no hope of receiving direct supplies from Europe, that there were other claims in Europe no less pressing than our own. The impression he gave was that there are countries on the Continent who needed coal more than we did, and that we could not,


therefore, enter the lists to try to get any coal for ourselves.
That is not the position, and I want to give the House a few figures produced by the European Coal Organisation, which will repay study. Poland has available an export surplus of 15 million tons of coal. Half of that goes to Europe, and the other half, which is not specified, probably goes to Russia, although I am not sure. At any rate, they have an exportable surplus of 15 million tons, and I should have thought that it was not impossible to get some of that to this country. We have had Polish coal before, and I am sure that we can get it again. France, at the moment, is recovering her coal position rapidly. She is only 12 million tons short of her 1935–38 average, whereas we are 52 million tons short. Czechoslovakia produced 14 million tons before the war, and is now producing 15 million tons. I say this to emphasise that there are countries in Europe which have surplus coal; and I hope that when the Minister himself returns to the Debate—he has not been here so much as he ought to have been—he will not say that he has not heard any constructive suggestions from this side.
I would like to put a few suggestions to him. First, let us take the figures of coal exported. We are now sending from the Ruhr to Berlin 1,500,000 tons of coal a year. Previously, Berlin got coal from what is now the Russian zone, particularly Silesia, and I can see no reason why the whole of this 1,500,000 tons should go across Germany to Berlin from the Ruhr. Marshal Stalin himself suggested, the other day, that we should consider the Ruhr as a place where we could get some coal for this country. Here is a good example of how we might take him at his word.
The second point is on the question of raising the efficiency of coal production in the Ruhr. Ruhr output in the British zone at present shows an efficiency of only 45 per cent. compared with prewar. The French zone not far away has already attained 61 per cent, of prewar. Cannot we somehow raise ours to what has been reached in the French zone? Cannot we use their experience? If wo could do that we should increase Ruhr output by 20 million tons by increasing from 45 per cent. to 61 per cent. Half could go to help Germany and the other half could

come here. This would give us 10 million tons.
I now wish to turn to South Africa. I had the honour of calling on the High Commissioner for South Africa yesterday and he told me the position which in turn I wish to put clearly to the House. At the present moment there are collieries in South Africa which could increase their production by 10 per cent. if it were not for transport shortages. They could, if they had the transport, deliver to this country 2,500,000 tons of coal a year. What do they want for it? They want 1,000 wagons. The Board of Trade, I notice, exported last year 20,000 wagons. Is it impossible to get only 1,000 wagons to South Africa? In the last three months the Board of Trade exported 5,000 wagons to India. Is it impossible to make over one thousand of those wagons to South Africa to get 2,500,000 tons of coal? This would avoid the cuts we have been told of this afternoon. I would like to support the argument as regards America, which were made by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. Would it not be possible for the Minister to go or to send some responsible Minister to America. The amount of coal which America exports is something like 50 million tons a year. Could we not ask for 10 per cent. of that?
During, the war we made great sacrifices; would it not be possible to ask America, who sends her exports all over the world, to send some to this country? These are constructive proposals which the Minister should consider. If this sort of administration had been going on during the war, in say, 1940, I think we should have been in a very bad position. We have a great deal for which to thank the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George). He did not let this sort of position develop. I am glad to see that the Minister has returned, because I am now coming to this point, and I would much rather say it to him when he is here—I consider that if a managing director of a big concern had had charge of the administration of the coal industry of this country as the Minister has had, he would have been dismissed long ago. I honestly mean that. He has not seriously tried, for instance, with regard to South Africa to get this extra coal. With regard to the European Coal Organisation, he has not tried to find out if something could really be done.


He could have called an extraordinary meeting, for instance. To sum up in figures the instances I have given, there are 20 million tons of coal available which could come to this country if the Minister got on with the job. However, I do not think he is capable of doing it. Is there no one on the Government benches who is capable of taking over this vital task and deal with the coal situation in a statesmanlike way, who can come forward and save this country from what otherwise will be disastrous ruin?

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: I think that every Member of this House realises clearly the profound gravity of the situation we are debating today. The economy of our nation is poised on the brink of absolute calamity. When it comes to a question of sharing the blame for the situation I do not think that there is a single Member of any party who could find it in his heart to exult or rejoice at the present failures. The issue is far too serious. The economic White Paper that we had the other day told us that the 1947 industrial problem is fundamentally a problem of coal. I am afraid if we do not look out the industrial problem of 1948 will be the same. We started this Debate by talking about certain aspects of domestic summer consumption. Our housewives who have borne colossal burdens in the last seven years have to have a further burden laid on their shoulders and that is very tragic. We know our British summer and we know the restrictions proposed will involve further hardships particularly to the very old and the very young. I hope that the medical certificates provision will be sympathetically administered. I am glad anyway the solid fuel allowance is not to be reduced, and I hope that the Government will see that is fully honoured in the next 12 months and that domestic stocking up takes place in time. I trust also that the coal supplied will be of the combustible, hydro-carbon variety.
I received a heavy and interesting looking parcel the other day that, in a moment of unwarranted optimism, I thought was a delayed Christmas present. On opening it I was confronted with an enormous piece of rock and a letter from a constituent asking me to project it with the greatest possible velocity in the direction

of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power. I declined this dangerous mission, but I did think of sending it to the former Minister of Food as a suitable non-combustible material for the repair of Himley Hall.
When we hear hon. Members opposite who have spent many years of honourable service in the mines speak on the subject we are debating today, we treat their speeches with great respect. Therefore, I certainly do not wish to contradict them unnecessarily, but I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Derby (Mr. H. White) did interpret wrongly certain remarks that were made by some of my hon. Friends earlier today on the miners' coal allowance and the dirt in coal. My hon. Friends certainly did not wish to shoot at the individual miners on either point but I think that the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) are so significant as to require some further investigation—since 1938 the number of miners down by 85,000, the miners' coal up by 5,000 tons a week, and domestic coal consumption down by 282,000 tons a week. I hope a further investigation will take place, but as far as this coal allowance is part of the wages it must, of course, be honoured and any voluntary surrender of coal must obviously be made good in money.
In the few brief remarks I intend to make I am going to deal mainly with the industrial aspect. Whether we are individually directly involved in industry or not we know that in the long run it is that aspect of the problem which affects us most deeply. The present output of British industry is alarmingly low and costs of production are steadily rising. What would happen if the present sellers' market came suddenly to an end one shudders to think. What is the reason for this low output? Obviously there are many factors, but I think that without any doubt the greatest is the irregularity in the supply of raw materials and components and, in particular, of this raw material which we are discussing today—coal. The two points I should like to make in that connection are these. First of all, every possible priority must be used to make sure that the basic industries are able to


work at full production and do not go short—the iron and steel trade particularly, perhaps, because on its production all other industries obviously depend.
The second point is, I hope that those responsible for making allocations to other industries wil follow critically the implications of the quotas they give to ensure that the results are not in some cases nullified. As one hon. Member on the other side of the House pointed out the other day, industry is really a series of interdependent processes. Coal means steel, steel means machinery, machinery means textiles, textiles mean exports, and exports mean raw materials and food. One bottleneck half way up ruins the whole thing. I wonder whether the Government realise the appalling difficulties caused today to those responsible for managing industry by the contradictory and last minute allocations of coal which have been made during this last winter. Large works have not been able to plan their production for two or three days ahead. Modern industry cannot be run in circumstances like that. There is more and more a tendency to go for continuous and semi-continuous processes and they cannot be stopped without the most appalling waste. Industry is scraping along by using up odd stocks, but even with the greatest resource it will not be possible to keep the wheels going from now onwards unless regular and timely supplies of coal are received. No further cushions are left to absorb the shocks from sudden fuel cuts.
We must know what we are going to get. The information which the President of the Board of Trade gave us this afternoon in regard to the allocation of coal for industry for the summer months, as far as it goes, will be very welcome. I assume that the three weeks' stocks which industry has got to make up itself is part of the 15 million tons stock which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power referred to as a national target at the beginning of the winter. The officials who deal with these allocations are nearly always courteous and helpful, but I think their jobs have been sometimes made almost impossible by changes and contradictory instructions from above. It is as if two bowlers were bowling alternate balls from opposite ends. Sometimes we recognise the style of the President of the Board of Trade. He usually keeps a fair length with a loose one occasionally. Then

the next one comes down from the Minister of Fuel and Power, whose style is a little erratic and impulsive. He puts down a fair proportion of long hops, full tosses, no balls and wides. When he is bowling nobody is safe, not even the umpire.
While I am talking about these coal allocations, I should like to put in a word for the small business man. It is not so easy for these small men. They have not the staff or the contacts to watch up their allocation and see that they get it. They merit the greatest possible consideration and help from those concerned As regards industry as a whole, in spite of the information we have been given recently I cannot see how the next 12 months are going to be got through without very considerable under-employment. It does seem to me that this is going to have most unpleasant effects on the 140 per cent. target which we have to secure by the end of the year. We have been told recently that there is a gap of about ten millions between summer production and consumption. I understand that seven or eight millions of this is going to fall on industry. The Parliamentary Secretary said it was hoped to save about one million of this by the Order we were discussing this afternoon. Can we be told how the remainder of the gap is going to be filled?
The core of the problem is really, of course, production of coal. Until we get substantially more than the 200 million tons mentioned in the White Paper, we are bound to have a continuation of underproduction and under-employment. There seems to be only two other possible ways of getting round the difficulty. One is to accelerate the conversion to oil programme and that may be difficult, and the other is to import coal. I urge the Government to let nothing stand in their way in getting coal from overseas. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is half-hearted about it. I think his flesh has been made to creep by the trades unions. He said he did not consider that it should be necessary to import foreign coal, but later he made a statement which was very guarded, when he said that "the Government were not unmindful of the possibility of other arrangements being made," and there were "new developments." I hope he will tell us now what they are. I ask him to pay attention to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member


for Ecclesall (Major Roberts). I believe that the Americans in their present frame of mind will gladly help us over the next 12 months and send some supplies without reducing their deliveries to Europe. They know we have lots of coal under our ground and it will help them to help us if we can convince them that we are doing everything to help ourselves.
First and foremost our salvation depends on home production. How much are we going to get? We have been told that the recruiting figures are better, and this is excellent news, and long may it continue. But what about the Poles? How is their training getting on? Is it the case that whatever number of suitable Poles volunteer they will be taken on, or are only a limited number to be accepted? In our present predicament, I do not think increased numbers alone are going to help us quickly enough. There is even the danger that this good news may mask the increasing output per head. If only we could get that even to the 1941 output, how 'many of our difficulties would go. Is that going to happen, and if so, when? I hope the Minister will give us the "late final" estimates tonight of what the prospects are. Will the five-day week eliminate voluntary absenteeism and deliver the coal? The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that he did not know. Perhaps he will be able to tell us something this evening; but if it does not, it will be a crushing disappointment to the nation, and will show conclusively that there is something wrong in the leadership of the mining industry. Mr. Lawther said recently that "recent events placed the British miner in the best position of any in the world." That is where the nation wants him to be. The miner has now got everything for which he asked—nationalisation, the Coal Board, the five-day week, more food and, of course, the right hon. Gentleman, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness or in health until the next Election do them part. Let the nation see what the miners are going to do in the depth of their gratitude.
We now have nationalisation. I, personally, do not believe that nationalisation is an efficient way of running industry, but if it will give us the coal we want quickly, and of a decent quality and not at an excessive price, then good luck to it We have got the Coal Board, and

already one hears of incipient ossification; which some of my hon. Friends foresaw when the Coal Nationalisation Bill was being discussed. One hears of bureaucratic methods, delays, preoccupation with details of administration and remoteness. If this is true, it is very disturbing. I only want to say this on the five-day week. That issue has been settled, and we must now await its result.
I have been down a coalmine only once. [Laughter.] Yes, and I regret that it is so. It was only for a few hours. When I came to the surface again, greatly to my relief, I did so with feelings of real respect for the work that was done below ground. If the five-day week is justifiable for any section of workers in our present precarious position it is justifiable for those who work underground, and I am sure that the nation will not grudge it to them, if the miners will give to the nation the coal that we need, before we lose any more of our industrial strength.
Hon. Members will have noted a rather significant passage printed in the stop press news of one of our evening papers today. It is a reported statement by Mr. Davies, president of the South Wales Miners' Federation. He is reported to have said:
We are concerned that reconstruction and mechanisation of coal industry shall be tackled with speed and not in spirit of leisurely experiment. It is time to call on Premier to reorganise his Government so that correct policies may be carried through, and new, fresh forces, from ranks of Labour movement promoted to key positions of responsibility and trust.
"New, fresh forces." Knowing where power resides today we must hasten to offer our sincere condolences to the Ministers concerned.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) referred to the action of certain Scottish industrialists. I cannot honestly believe that men in that position would voluntarily close down their works for two days purely because of political pique.

Mr. Scollan: For a week, not two days.

Mr. Amory: It is a fantastic idea. One other thing we ask of the mining industry, to return at the earliest possible moment to its prewar standards of quality and choice of grades. Today we are getting much coal unsuited to the purpose for which it is required. Some of it is really frightful stuff. We do not hear much


about the price of coal today, but looking forward a year or two, let us remember that the cumulative effect of the price of coal comes to a substantial element in manufacturing costs. And coal has to be sold in the markets of the world competitively. Today we are paying stiff prices for coal which is not of the average calorific quality which we were getting before the war.
The importance of exports should be stressed whenever we talk about coal in this House. It will be a disaster if the notion takes root that never again is this country going in for exports of coal. The Minister of Fuel and Power has said that a united effort is necessary to solve the fuel problem. I believe that he is right, but that kind of effort must be inspired. The right hon. Gentleman is in a position where the example which he sets is of the very first importance. The right hon. Gentleman has estimated production this summer at six million tons less than the figure of last year. That simply will not do. Industry is profoundly disturbed, not only about what it is to get this summer, but what it is to get next winter, because industry has to plan, whether the Government do it or not, at least six months ahead. Arc the Government at last going to apply foresight and forward planning, or are they going to hope again for the best and for a mild winter? It all comes down to a question of leadership.
When the trumpet gives forth an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?
The nation wants leadership in which it can feel confident. I feel that, too often, the kind of leadership we are getting is like the rapidly cooling exudation from the top of a moribund volcano caused by spasmodic eruptions and internal strains and stresses. The nation has given the miners what they wanted; it now asks the miners to give a fair return—enough coal to keep the wheels of industry going faster than ever before, enough to keep the houses of the people warm and dry, and to do the washing and cooking, and enough to provide exports to buy those vital imports that nothing except coal will buy today.
Have the Government courage to set such a task? Something more than 200 million tons is needed this year and a good deal more than that next year. If that is achieved, the nation will have its feet set firmly on the road to economic

recovery; if not, then there lies ahead an endless vista of stoppages, dislocations, shortages, under-employment, and uneconomic working. These things will cause an indefinite postponement of the day when this nation once more pays its way, an indefinite postponement of the day when the shops are filled with things the people want to buy, and a progressive paralysis of our whole economy for which history will lay a large measure of the blame with the present Government. I trust that, this evening, the Minister of Fuel and Power will convince us that the Government are equal to this crisis which is of such desperate import for our future destiny.

9.28 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): The House has listened with its usual courtesy to a most interesting essay, which bore the mark of careful preparation. Undoubtedly, the composition was impeccable, though I am bound to say that the content was infantile. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cheap."] It does not lie with hon. Members opposite to complain when they get a Roland for their Oliver. I gathered during the course of the Debate that I am cordially disliked by hon. Members opposite. They must not complain if there is a ready and willing response.
This Debate has, in one respect, been a curious one. It began with consideration of an Order designed to impose certain restrictions on the use of gas and electricity by various classes of consumers, and during the course of that Debate hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite referred to the subject of production, distribution, miners' coal, and so forth; but when they came to the Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment, we discovered that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to revert to the earlier Debate, and references have been made to the undesirability, to put it mildly, of promoting an Order which seeks to impose restrictions.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary had made a very able reply to the Debate on the subject of domestic restrictions. Ordinarily, I would have said no more on the subject, but, in the circumstances arising out of the latter part of the Debate, I feel this must be said. None of us on these benches, certainly


nobody in the Government, has the least liking for restrictions of any sort or kind. We are as concerned for the wellbeing of the housewives of this country as anybody on the Opposition benches, and we shall seek, as we have always done, to safeguard their interests. But hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have got a record in this matter. I should not be at all surprised if millions of housewives in this country recalled the many sordid episodes that occurred in the lifetime of Tory Governments. They will not forget.
If I do not present the argument as carefully and as concisely as the right hon. and intellectual. Gentleman opposite, it must be put down to lack of education. But, at any rate, there is no doubt about my reasoning. I repeat that we are as much concerned about the housewives of this country in the matter of domestic fuel restrictions as anybody on the other side. But we are equally concerned about the position of industry in this country. When the fuel crisis occurred, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite said that we should have exercised more foresight last year; we should not have wasted our substance, by which they meant that we ought not to have wasted coal. We ought to have saved it up, we ought to have resorted to more stocking. At whose expense? At the expense of consumers. As to industrial consumers, if we had resorted to stocking at the expense of consumption, it would inevitably have led to short time and excessive unemployment in the country.

Mr. Henry Strauss: As it did.

Mr. Shinwell: On the other hand, had we resorted to rationing last year, of the use of gas and electricity, there would have been violent and vehement complaints from the Opposition benches. At any rate, I understood that hon. Members opposite thought that rationing would not be a bad idea. It is very difficult to understand what they mean when they suggest that alternative measures, other than those which we have suggested, could be adopted. The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) spoke about a voluntary appeal for more co-operation. We had innumerable appeals last year, and if I was criticised for one thing, it was on the ground that I resorted to appeals for voluntary co-operation.
We do not mind being criticised by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because we know them for what they are. At the Fuel Efficiency Conference on 8th October last year, I made an appeal for a 10 per cent. cut. Three weeks afterwards it was obvious that that appeal had failed. It was necessary then to consider the preparation of a scheme of rationing, and we did so. That has been discussed in the House, and it will be within the recollection of hon. Members. Now when, in order to assist in conserving fuel supplies, to enable industry to work at as high a pressure as possible, and to prevent short time and unemployment, we ask domestic consumers and non-industrial consumers to suffer some inconvenience so that industry shall continue, we are told by hon. Members opposite that we ought to have sought alternative measures. The fact of the matter is—and we had better understand it—nothing that this Government will do, whether it is right or wrong, will 'ever satisfy the Opposition. As for the silly, futile, vapid and infantile attacks which are launched against me from time to time from these remarkable geniuses on the Opposition benches, including the right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) who, in his pontifical speech this evening, indicated that all was well when he was at the Ministry of Fuel and Power and everything went wrong when he left it, if it was not that I know right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because of my lengthy experience in this House, I would probably take them at their word and be a little worried about what they have said. As it is, I am amused and nothing more. If it comes to a war of words, I can assure them that I will be willing to accept their challenge at any moment.
What does it boil down to? It boils down to production. Of course, it does. Who has repeated that more often than myself? I have said it all over the country. I dislike restrictions. I detest prohibitions in the use of this, that or the other commodity—of course I do. So do others on these benches. Indeed, so do we all. But, in the circumstances, it is inevitable. I hope it will be temporary in its duration, and, in so far as it is necessary to adopt modifications, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, we are prepared to consider any reasonable proposal that is made to us. I repeat, at bottom it is a


matter of production. We cannot solve this fuel problem unless we get more coal. [HON. MEMBERS; "Hear, hear."] These modern Columbuses on the opposite benches have made a discovery. We happen to have known it for a long time, precisely because we understand that production alone can solve this problem, however much one cares to promote fuel efficiency, which, of course, is very desirable. I can tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke in parenthesis, that we are doing far more in respect of fuel efficiency than ever he did when he was Minister of Fuel and Power, no matter what he has done. [Interruption.] Of course, I know hon. Members opposite do not like what I am saying. That is precisely why I am saying it. No matter what one does in respect of fuel efficiency, no matter what may be done in the way of imposing restrictions on consumers, it is production we want, and it is production we must seek.
We have tried to increase production, but, obviously, it is not the Ministry of Fuel and Power that increases fuel production. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is certainly not hon. Members opposite who will increase production; and, if I may be permitted to say so—because I want to be fair in this matter—nobody in this House can increase production. It is the men in the pits who will increase production. We must depend on them. What has happened? In the three months preceding the end of last year the trend of production was accelerated. There is no dispute about that. What has happened since? Hon. Members are well aware of what occurred when the severe weather set in. Many pits were inaccessible; there were considerable transport difficulties, and, in consequence production was impeded. That had nothing to do with the Ministry, and nothing to do with hon. Members. The miners were not to blame. There were the facts. It was due to the severe weather. But, in spite of the severe weather conditions, in spite of insuperable transport difficulties such as this country has not encountered for a very long time, the miners succeeded in producing about 3½ million tons more coal in the first four months of this year than they did in the corresponding period of last year.

Mr. H. Strauss: Much less than 1941.

Mr. Shinwell: If hon. Members imagine I regard that as adequate for our purpose, I can assure them I do not. We want more. In those difficult circumstances the men did a fine job of work, and I admire them for it. Of course, I understand what hon. Members opposite are trying to do. If they could drive a wedge between my- self and the National Union of Mineworkers and the miners generally, what an achievement that would be for them. Therefore, they come along, in that mealy-mouthed fashion, and ask about miners' coal. They have known all about miners' coal for years. The right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke knows all about miners' coal. He endeavoured to reduce the amount of miners' coal—by a process of negotiation, I do not deny that, conducted quite reasonably, as one might expect—but he only succeeded up to a point, and it was a minor point. These negotiations have been going on ever since, and the National Coal Board—just as the private owners did under the supervision, or direction, or with the consent of the Ministry of Fuel and Power—will continue those negotiations with the National Union of Mineworkers in order to secure a larger amount of miners' coal being made available for the ordinary consumer.
However, I must say to hon. Members that this is a very complicated affair, and not until a new wage structure is negotiated will it be possible to deal with this matter effectively. We do not want to throw a spanner into the machinery at this moment, although I understand that before long a new wage structure will be negotiated. I prefer to leave this matter—whether hon. Members opposite like it or not—to the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. Never a word is said about fishermen, and fishermen are a very hardy and fine type of men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I know more about them than hon. Members opposite. I have mixed with them, and I understand them. I have not looked down on them from afar, with a superior and condescending attitude. But fishermen always get a share of the catch. Does anyone complain about that? Does anyone say to fishermen returning from fishing in the Faroe Islands, or wherever it may be, "You must not use the fish for yourselves. The poor domestic consumers are going short of fish, and you must share it with them"? The fact of the matter is, that when hon. Members


opposite talk in that fashion they are just humbugs, and it is as well that the country should know it.
I turn to the question of recruitment. If there is one achievement to the credit of the Government it is that we have succeeded—and I hope hon. Members will note the facts of the situation—in securing a net recruitment of about 18,000 men and boys since the beginning of this year. The gross recruitment is 30,000, but there is an element of wastage. I suggest that a net recruitment of 18,000 in the first four months is pretty good going. What does it indicate? It indicates that, at long last, there is a feeling of satisfaction with the present set up in the mining industry; and that there is a response to the goodwill that emanates from the National Coal Board; and there is no doubt about that I know that hon. Members opposite would like the Coal Board to have a row with the National Union of Mineworkers. How they would gloat over it. And, indeed, they do gloat over our miseries, and we know it.
Of course, one can recruit a large number of men and boys, particularly boys, under 18 or over 18, whether ready to be trained for face work or not ready to be trained. It takes some time before boys, even if they are over 18, can be upgraded to the coal face. We have to remember that a large number of the coal faces, the "runs" as they are called, were allowed to fall into disuse under private ownership. They had to be reopened under the Coal Board, and it takes time, and it takes a lot of work, and we have got to take men away from other production points for that job. All these difficulties are well known to people in the industry, though it is quite possible that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory), who has just addressed us in an interesting fashion, and has been down a pit only once, and was glad to get out of it, may not be aware of these important facts.
I come now to the question of imports, of which we have heard a great deal from the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall (Major Roberts). I do hope and beg and pray that one of these days I shall hear him say something having sense.

Mr. Pritt: Do not be too optimistic.

Mr. Shinwell: He says, "Why do we not get coal from all over the world, even from France?"

Major Roberts: I did not suggest getting any coal from France, although they did export 300,000 tons to Switzerland last year.

Mr. Shinwell: If I have made a mistake, I apologise to the hon. and gallant Member, but I was advised that, in his demand for the importation of coal in large quantities, we should seek to get some from France. I assure him there are extraordinary complexities in that regard. What about South Africa? Hon. Members opposite say that I am lighthearted about this question of imports. I met the Minister of Economic Development, Mr. Waterson, when he was here. We discussed their transport difficulties. We had discussions about the possibility of importing coal from South Africa to this country, or, as an alternative, that they should export coal for bunkers and, to that extent, relieve us from the need of supplying bunkers in the Mediterranean and elsewhere. But, I am afraid it has not yet so far resulted in any tangible imports, whether for bunkering or for other purposes. It is not our fault. Neither is it the fault of the Union of South Africa. There are physical difficulties. Their pits are 200 or 250 miles from the coast. They want more wagons, and those wagons are not easily available.
There are wagon difficulties in the United States of America, as the United States authorities have informed us. When it comes to the United States of America, I beg hon. Members to understand that we have exhausted every possibility in order to secure coal from the United States. The matter is not yet ended. But in the next quarter we may get none. We may in the following quarter get some, but that depends on the allocation provided by the United States authorities for the European countries. I must say on this matter that I am surprised at hon. Members opposite when they make the suggestion that we made no effort to do this. It is not entirely in my hands. It is a matter for the Government as a whole. [Interruption.] Certainly. Have right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite never heard about the doctrine of collective effort and responsibility? There are lots of things they have not heard about, and there are many that they have heard about


that they have not understood. This is a matter for the Government as a whole. My right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the Prime Minister himself have made superhuman efforts to have this matter attended to. So far we have not succeeded, not because we have not made the effort, but because there are physical difficulties.
I come now to two points referred to by my hon. Friends, and, in particular, the startling statement—I am bound to use that expression—by the hon. Member for Ruthergien (Mr. McAllister), fortified by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons), about the prospective closing of steelworks in Lanarkshire on account of the miners in Scotland taking their two days' statutory holidays next week. As regards these statutory holidays which the miners are taking next week—

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentlemen turn more this way, so that we might hear what he says?

Mr. Shinwell: I am extremely sorry, but I was speaking to my hon. Friends behind me. The Scottish miners are entitled to these statutory holidays. As it happens, they are telescoping two of their holidays, to which they are entitled, and, of course, it will obviously have a depressing effect on Scottish production next week, which I regret, but, on the other hand, they will not take the holidays later on, so that what we lose on the swings in the first week of May we gain on the roundabouts sometime in July or August. I cannot imagine that steelworks owners in Lanarkshire should use this as their alibi in order to close down their steelworks, and we shall make inquiries into the matter. This I must say—if ever there was a justification for taking over iron and steel under public, ownership, it is their action here. It is the sort of thing we would expect from private enterprise, and, no doubt, this illustration will be used on frequent occasions.
And now a word about the five-day week. I have made speeches outside on this subject, and, because I am apprehensive, I speak out honestly to hon. Members. I am apprehensive about this experiment as to its effect on production, but I must say that I am wholly in favour of the five-day week. I believe that the

mine workers underground, if they work a five-day week, are doing a real job of work. I do not ask them to do more, but I ask them to do no less than that, and what I have said to hon. Members I have said to the miners themselves all over the country, and I will go on saying it. Naturally, it is an experiment, and it is impossible to say at this juncture, apart from speculation and conjecture, which is never of value in these matters, what the actual result will be in terms of production. I am hoping for the best. I know the miners are anxious to co-operate, and that is something to go on with and is a very valuable asset
It may well be that we shall get a higher production than is estimated, but I prefer to wait for a few weeks, and certainly until the end of May, before making up my mind as to the effects of the five-day week on production. I will tell the House quite frankly that, if we should find that the five-day week does not work out, even with a better atmosphere, in terms of production, we shall have to come to the House and say so, after, of course, having our conversations with the National Coal Board and with the mineworkers. I am satisfied that the leaders of the mineworkers, some of whom have been referred to in this Debate, are as anxious to promote the highest production as we are in this House, and there the matter must stand.
There is another reason why we must have the five-day week sooner or later, and I think it would be better sooner than later. The five-day week will have a beneficial effect on the minds of the men working in the pits, and that is our purpose. On the other hand, suppose we had said to the mineworkers, "You cannot have the five-day week." What would have been the result? We should have had disputes all over the place.
I believe that it is far better to promote this desirable reform now, because we believe in it, and because the miners want it, than to take the risk of precipitating an industrial stoppage which would impose serious hardship on the whole community. If Members opposite had been in power we should have had stoppages all over the country, some of which they would have precipitated by their own folly, and some of which would have happened, inevitably, because there was a Tory Government. No doubt they would


be delighted if we had a large number of disputes in the mining industry. They have referred to unofficial disputes elsewhere, which we deplore as much as they. They have gloated over these matters, and the miseries to which the country may be subjected.

Mr. Jennings: Where is the Dunkirk spirit?

Mr. Shinwell: It does not consist of letting right hon. and hon. Members opposite castigate us, lambast us, and knock us about all over the place while we adopt a yellow attitude in reply. I see my old friend the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) opposite. He is still as "old lace" as ever. He has spoken about politeness; in fact, he has written books on politeness. What he does not know about politeness is not worth learning, yet he complains about me after the lessons in courtesy which I have given him in the past.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), in one of the best speeches I have/ever heard him make, a restrained speech, without a word of criticism of myself, for which I shall be eternally grateful, asked me to present a revised coal budget. I cannot do that, and I will tell him why. Not so long ago my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade presented a budget to the House and, indeed, came to the House today to tell us that he proposed to provide for industry, during the summer, an amount of coal not less than that which he provided for industry in the corresponding period of last year. The question, naturally, emerges: Where is that coal coming from, and ought we not to have a revised budget? The fact is that we have been luckier than we expected. We thought we would have only five million tons at the end of the winter. As it happens, we have rather more, nearly six million tons. The other week we stepped up the quantities of coal for certain industries, and now it is possible to step them up still further, because we are in a more fortunate position. That is all the better for us, and for the country. We also believe that the additional manpower—we have now 711,000 persons in the industry—and the fine atmosphere that is being evoked in the industry will enable us to produce more coal in the summer.

We therefore feel that now is the time to give industries a chance of working at the highest possible pressure, even if it means taking a risk. In these circumstances, I must be excused from presenting a budget.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of St. Helens, a copy of which Order was presented on 29th April, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Hertford, a copy of which Order was presented on 29th April, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Mansfield, a copy of which Order was presented on 29th April, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Royal Tunbridge Wells, a copy of which Order was presented on 29th April, be approved."—[Mr. Oliver.]

WAR PENSIONS (COST OF LIVING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

10.2 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: May I first express the feelings, which I know will be shared by Members in all parts of the House and by ex-Servicemen and other organisations throughout the country, of appreciation of the services rendered by the present Postmaster-General who occupied the post of Minister of Pensions and before that of Parliamentary Secretary for so long, and may I say a word of welcome to the new Minister, this being, I think, his first Debate?
The Government have decided to throw over the cost-of-living index under which we have worked for a very long time and it is indeed time they did, because it is out of date and misleading. The British Legion and Members of the House have been pointing out to one Government after another for the past 25 years that this index was not related to the reality of the life of our people. That is not surprising when you consider it was devised upon tables prepared in 1904, and it left out many commodities and services which, far from being luxuries, have become ordinary day to day expenses of ordinary families. In the old cost-of-living schedule it was presumed that a workman and his family never eat any vegetables except potatoes, and no less than 22 per cent. of the services and goods which are known by recent surveys to be commonly used in all houses in the country were left out of the old index altogether.
The passing of the old index is a matter on which we must congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it raises certain questions which I want to put to the Minister. Why is the old index being thrown over? Because it is out of date partly, but also presumably because the Government expect a rise to take place in the new cost of living and it would embarrass them. It would affect the lives of three to four million people and the pensions of three quarters of a million more pensioners. Are the obligations which now exist such as to lay upon the Government the need to raise the basic rate of pension, notwithstanding the change of index, assuming that the obligation is shown to exist by the figures?
The reason for asking is this. If hon. Members think in terms of a company balance sheet, the form of which is changed in a particular year, they will appreciate that one cannot readily compare that year with the previous year. One has not a common standard for the two years. If we enter upon conditions in which a new index comes into force we do want to be assured that some factor which will relate it to the obligations which already exist will be brought forward, and that it will be a fair one. The Chancellor said that consultations were going on between the Ministry of Labour and both sides of industry by which, of course, he meant the trade unions and the employers. Are consultations going on between the

Government and the representatives of ex-Servicemen? Are consultations going on between the Government and the British Legion? No, they are not, and since there are 750,000 people to whom the State owes an obligation in this matter, the second question that I have to ask the Minister is whether he will call ex-Servicemen's representatives and the British Legion into consultation so that they may have as fair a chance as the two sides of industry of asking how this new cost-of-living index is to be constructed and how it will operate in relation to the men in whom they are interested.
Now with regard to the cost of living itself. The luxury—if you like—of 40 years ago has become the commonplace of today, and I want in the few minutes available to me to explain why I think that a rise in the basic rate of pension is already due. In 1919 the 100 per cent. disabled man was given £2 a week as a flat rate pension. He has since been raised to £2 5s. to assimilate his rate to that which is to be paid under the Social Insurance Act for disability. In addition to that he receives a marriage allowance for a wife whenever he marries her—that is a recent innovation, but he gets it now—he gets children's allowances, as he always did, but he gets them for all his children, and if he is unemployable he draws £1 a week un-employability allowane. Moreover, if he is unemployable his wife's allowance is 16s. instead of 10s.
I do not want to worry the House with figures but I should like to take a case to show what this means. A man who is disabled in the highest degree receives £2 5s. for himself, plus £1 if he is unemployable, plus 16s. for his wife, making £4 is. in all. He may be a veteran of the first war, and he is keeping himself and his wife on that money. His daughter, who may be 19 and may be working for the Minister of Pensions in his office, will get £4 plus if she is an unskilled typist or messenger girl, and or more if she is a shorthand typist. Is £4 1s. enough for that man? If he has lost both his eyes, both his hands and is terribly disabled in that sort of way he will receive big attendance allowances. They go some way towards putting him in a fairly good position, and I am not making any complaint for him. There are 30,000 men disabled in the highest degree. I think that only a very few of them receive attendant


allowances, and only a handful get the big attendant allowances. I think that there is, therefore, a case for raising the basic rate for the man who does not qualify for those allowances.
Out of the whole body of pensioners, who number 750,000, 450,000 belong to this recent war. Of those, some 60,000 receive pensions above 50 per cent. and the balance, nearly four-fifths of the whole number, receive 50 per cent. or less. Let us look at them. A man has lost one leg or one arm. In 1919 and throughout the years between he got £1 and no more unless he was married. That was 50 per cent. of the average rate. He now gets 22s. 6d. and he is not qualified for the attendance allowance and he does not need it. A great mass of people of this sort have got jobs and the argument may be used that because he has got a job he has gained the advantage of any rise that has taken place in the wages for his job. It remains a fact that between 1919 and the present time he has only got 2s. 6d. more than he used to get. He is 25 years older and his disability is a seven days' one and not five days. Moreover, he has been handicapped in the race of life and is not as free as other men to choose his job.
The great mass of these people are not in highly paid jobs and are paid less than the average man, so that it cannot be argued that, because he has got a job, his pension should stay where it is. My contention is that the pound is not worth as much today as it was in 1919, whatever the cost-of-living figure may be. I do not want to be sentimental about the beer and cigarettes, but I would ask the House to realise this that if a disabled sailor, soldier or airman has 10 cigarettes a day and one pint of beer a day it will cost him 19s. 3d. a week. If he has a Guinness on Sunday it will be over the pound. Is he to abstain, or is he to be given a pension which will enable him to have some of these small amenities of life which I think that a grateful people in 1919 meant him to have?
I would draw to a close by making these requests to the Minister. First, will he consult the representatives of the ex-Servicemen as he is consulting the representatives of industry? Second, will he look into the question now and see whether a rise in the basic rate of the 100 per cent. and all the other percentages is not already

due? Third, I want to say one word to the ordinary man in the street. There is only a limited amount of goods available for all of us. If we raise everybody's wages and incomes to meet the increased cost of living, which I am sure is coming as a result of the economic stress and strain of the bad winter, of the coal shortage and of all the rest of it, then proportionately the pensioner will not get any more actually. We are simply going to have another bit of inflation. Is it not perhaps time when we might say to the trade unions so strongly organised and so powerful, "You have your rise, good luck to you, but is it not time now to stand back just a little and let the 750,000 disabled men throughout the country have their rise"? I make a plea to the Government and to a wider sphere to consider whether the time has not come to take into account this coming rise in the cost of living and to bring about this measure of justice which I feel is more than overdue.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I feel bound to associate myself, for a very few moments only, with the case put forward so sympathetically by my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), who spoke with such authority and such eloquence on this subject. As he has shown, the disabled ex-Serviceman has received very little advancement to help keep pace with the controlled inflation with which this country is faced today. The 5s. rise, to which he has referred, is a small thing when compared with the rise in the cost of living. I feel, as my hon. Friend has said, that the time has come, more particularly in view of the approaching revision of the cost of living index, when the needs and the position of these men, who have deserved so well of the community, should be taken into account. I reinforce his plea to the Government to lose no time in making whatever investigations they can to see how they can help these men, so that they do not suffer further from the rise in the cost of living.

10.16 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. John Hynd): I should first of all like to thank the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) for the welcome he gave me in my capacity as Minister of Pensions. I, too, echo the well-merited tribute he paid to my predecessor. I fully appreciate that


my task tonight might have been very difficult had I not the good fortune to follow a Minister of Pensions who had done such fine work on behalf of our disabled ex-Servicemen, and on behalf of the civilian casualties of the last war. The hon. Member opened his remarks by suggesting—and I think it is the first time I have heard it suggested—that the Government are considering examining the cost of living index because we are expecting a heavy rise in the cost of living, and we would not wish this to be reflected in increased wages. It is a new suggestion to me, and contrary to the facts.
This is a measure pressed for by all sections of the community, particularly by the trade unions, for a long time, and it is a matter of getting the cost-of-living index on a practical basis. What the hon. Member suggested, among other things, is that the Government, in abandoning the old cost-of-living figure, should now give undertakings that they will carry out the policy and the pledges in regard to the adjustment of wages and people's earnings, despite all that may be shown as a result of this examination into the cost of living figure. The hon. Member knows better than anyone else that so far as war pensions are concerned, they are not related to any cost-of-living figure. I do not think he will dispute that, because it is generally accepted.

Sir I. Fraser: I do challenge that most definitely. I have the statements of successive Ministers, made over the last 25 years, proving—and I have chapter and verse, but not the time to give it—that the flat rate is, in fact, related to the cost of living.

Mr. Hynd: I, too, have not the time to recite the history, but, in brief, if I may refresh the hon. Member's mind, it was a fact that the original 1914–18 pensions were related to the cost-of-living index, and an assurance given that the pensions would be adjusted according to the rise and fall in the cost-of-living index figure over a margin of 5 per cent., but, as was implied by subsequent statements of Ministers not of this Government, the Minister of Pensions, in 1928, made a very clear statement that while there would be no reduction in the pension rate as a result of the fall in the cost-of-living index figures, there might be an increase, assuming that the cost of living rose over 215, which was the level in 1919—that was provided there was no substantial change

in the pension range by the addition of new classes of beneficiaries. There have been substantial alterations by the additions of new classes as a result of the new classes brought in during the 1939–45 war.
Pension rates in 1919 were related to the cost-of-living figure of 215, and they were placed at 40s. In spite of considerable decreases in the cost-of-living figure since then, there have been no reductions in the pensions. In 1943, the new war pensions were established, in relation to the cost-of-living figure at that time, at 32s. 6d., in comparison with the 1919 rate of dos. In August, 1943, it was decided to assimilate the basic pension rates for the two wars at the rate of 40s. The hon. Member knows that in December, 1945, the pension was increased to 45s. but not because of a rise in the cost of living. In fact, the cost-of-living figure was still considerably below that of 1919. Had the formula of 1919 been applied, the pension might then have been reduced. It was, in fact, increased from 40s. to 45s.
That, as the hon. Member says, was due to the fact that we were recognising a new factor, namely, the relationship—the desirable relationship—between the war pensioned and the victims of industrial injury. Indeed, it was said by an hon. Member on that occasion that this change was desirable. He said that he, and other hon. Members of the party now sitting opposite, regarded the change as of vital importance because those who had suffered in the war in the service of their country ought not to receive disability pensions lower than those granted to the casualties of industry. I believe that view has been generally accepted by the House.
What the hon. Member for Lonsdale has said, of course, is that the relationship the industrial injuries scheme—I do not think that the hon. Member has any objection to that principle, broadly—is not enough, in the present situation. His remarks infer that he was not concerned only with the war pensioner but also with the industrially injured and with other classes who have fixed incomes, and that he was not so concerned with the working trade unionists or with the ordinary worker. Although war pension rates were then related to the Industrial Injuries Act, the war injured still had considerable advantages. The wife and family allowances continued' to be paid to the war


injured although not to the industrially injured; the child allowances for men under treatment applied to all the children of the war injured but not to the industrially injured; similarly, widows' pensions were higher. The widow also received benefit for all her children.
The hon. Member again referred—when I say "again" I have in mind the previous occasion on which he raised this point in the House and on which occasion he said what I thought he repeated tonight—to the fact that he was not dissatisfied with the rates applicable to the most seriously injured class. That is the class with not only 100 per cent. disablement but who are unemployable and to whom the unemployable supplement, attendance allowances, and so on, apply. The hon. Member emphasised his dissatisfaction with the rates applicable to those who are on the bare 100 per cent. and are not unemployable, and those who are on still lower rates. I do not know whether it is really necessary to point out again that 45s. is not a rate applicable to many of the recipients of war pensions. The case quoted by the hon. Member was a 5o per cent. disability case. That is precisely the kind of case where a man is in a position to earn more money at his work.
When one compares the position of the completely unemployable pensioner and that of the employable pensioner, the employable pensioner is not in a very much worse position. If we take a comparison, we will find that the unemployable pensioner has 45s., he has his wife's allowance of 16s., he has his children's allowances amounting to 7s. 6d. per child, with 5s. family allowance added for every child after the first, he has his unemployability allowance, and he has his attendance allowance; but although he has his attendance allowance, it has also to be noted that that allowance is given for attendance, and that man, therefore, is not necessarily a net gainer to the amount of the attendance allowance. The employable pensioner has 45s. and he, too, can have a wife and children, and if he has, he has 10s. additional for his wife, which makes 55s., he has 7s. 6d. for the first child, which makes 62s. 6d., if he has another child he gets 7s. 6d., which makes 70s., plus family allowance at 5s., which makes 75s., and he gets another

12s. 6d. if there is another child, making 87s. 6d. over and above his earnings. Therefore, I feel that a comparison of the two cases does not always redound to the advantage of the completely unemployable pensioner.

Sir I. Fraser: The point is that if the basic rate is raised, it will, of course, be raised for both.

Mr. Hynd: That is true, but it is also true that it was generally accepted, I think, by the House, and in the country, that it was preferable to pay attention to the most needy cases and to adjust such sums as were available for war pensions purposes on that basis to ensure that the most needy cases had the most benefit. Therefore, it follows that if we were to increase the basic pension, we would not only increase the pensions for the unemployable and the employable pro rata, but we would also probably have to review the supplementations which were made as the alternative to a higher basic pension. I do not think the hon. Member or the House generally would prefer to depart from the principle which has been generally accepted that it is better, with the money available, to pay the most attention to the most needy cases rather than to lay down arbitrarily a higher basic rate without having the means or opportunities to supplement the more needy cases. That is very well borne out by a report in the journal of one of the ex-Serviceman's associations which makes direct reference to the point in regard to one of their members who suffered amputation of one leg and one arm as a result of service in the 1914–1918 war. The reference continues:
His pension was 40s. per week. He married after disablement and received no allowances for his wife and the children which came to them. In 1943, the Ministry of Pensions introduced the unemployability supplement, and an application for our member resulted in award, so that his income from pension and allowances was then increased from 40s. to 92s. 6d. for himself, wife and three children. Applications for an attendance allowance were persistently rejected. The allowance for a wife in such cases was later increased by 6s. per week, and from January, 1947, our member is automatically entitled to 10s. per week attendance allowance, and 5s. weekly increase in disability pension. He is also entitled to family allowances of 5s. per week for two of his children, so that the total income for this badly disabled member and his family is now £6 3s. 6d. per week compared with 40s. weekly from 1918 to 1943.


The point about this comment in the ex-Servicemen's journal is that they say:
The future policy of ex-Service organisations in regard to flat rate pensions for 100 per cent. disablement and special supplementary allowances for extreme forms of disablement, unemployability, attendance, treatment, temporary incapacity, etc., requires very careful consideration. General opinion is veering to the view that adequate supplementary allowances for those who need or deserve special provision is of greater importance than a high flat rate for all disability pensioners.
That is the opinion of the B.L.E.S.M.A. organisation. I would like to refer to one further point. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I would consult the British Legion and other ex-Servicemen's organisations on the implication of the cost-of-living index figure. The implications of whatever may be the new cost-of-living index figure are very much wider than their implication in relation to ex-Servicemen's pensions, and it is not for me to commit the Government an any interpretation they may make of these cost-of-living figures and their application in various quarters, but I am prepared constantly to consider the whole field of war

service pensions, particularly in consultation with my Advisory Committee, of which the hon. Member is by no means a silent or useless member.
I am sure that with the advantage of consultation with him and his colleagues we will be able to examine the whole of the repercussions of present-day conditions, including any changes that may be made in the cost of living or any other factor in relation to the existing pensions. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman has taken this early opportunity to raise the question, and if it were not for the fact that the outcome of the present discussions in regard to the cost of living were so hypothetical at this time, I would have preferred to have been able to give him a direct reply.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTYSPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order made upon 13th November.

Adjourned at Twenty-eight Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.